Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Amazing Flow Test Results on Stude Heads

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Engine: Amazing Flow Test Results on Stude Heads

    I found this thread on the HAMB. Here is Tom Covington flow testing a new port design for the Stude Heads.
    Last edited by sals54; 02-18-2013, 07:14 AM.
    sals54

  • #2
    It's great to see what can be done, however I doubt it would hold together under heat, cylinder pressure, bolt torque, and the solvent nature of oils. Somehow a glued engine part strikes me as unreliable. GM has has many failures with plastic engine parts.
    Bez Auto Alchemy
    573-318-8948
    http://bezautoalchemy.com


    "Don't believe every internet quote" Abe Lincoln

    Comment


    • #3
      Thanks for the help. Now the video is embedded so we can watch it here.
      sals54

      Comment


      • #4
        In looking at the ports and exhaust manifolds on the Studey compared to the fifties 331 to 390 caddy I think the studey has as big a ports by the sixties as the biggest caddy motor, so they should flow a lot of air fuel mix at high rpm even in stock form!
        Diesel loving, autocrossing, Coupe express loving, Grandpa Architect.

        Comment


        • #5
          To me, the most interesting comment Covington makes is the flow rates increasing with stock valve sizing as the rpms go beyond the Studes norms. Now it seems, the Stude head may have some of its secrets unleashed. This new design may allow higher rpms at ever increasing flow rates which causes us to rethink cam profiles and horsepower that heretofore, may have been unthinkable.
          Mike V, Jack V, Ted H, and others, hurry and weigh in on this. You guys have real world experience with the high output Studes.
          Now realize that the head mods also include the exhaust side as well. Radical changes in the port design. In fact, the entire "snout" of the exhaust ports are removed and separate outlets put in place which would allow for custom headers. The exhaust side also has the high angle design that removes the sudden turn down that exists now.
          Here's the link to the 5 pages of mods:

          http://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/s...debaker+intake
          sals54

          Comment


          • #6
            Bezhawk, The "glued" portion of the cylinder head port is simply to test the port design. The high angle and port shape is what is being tested. This is in no way the final product. The flow numbers are off the charts. I'm excited to see it.
            sals54

            Comment


            • #7
              Here's another video showing a less radical port design with similar results. Remember that these tests are done with stock Stude valve sizing.
              sals54

              Comment


              • #8
                Hey Sal -

                I just got back from the east coast for work (few weeks !).
                While I can't see the video at work, and my home "dial-up" is to slow to try it that way....
                I read the work Tom (and Jeff) are doing.

                I did the same thing two/three years ago.
                Back before I found someone that would build us roller cam shafts, all of my port flow testing stopped at .500" lift. I was using a well maintained Superflow 600, not Toms home made bench (flow value variation). Not blasting Toms bench at all, I just know from Tom and I talking, his bench read higher numbers than the Superflow 600 I was using...doing the same things, including a purely stock port..!

                Anyway, I was able to get a repeatable 212cfm out of one port design. And that was at .500" lift. Now, with a few cams lifting to .640", I'd think around 220cfm is possible with that port.
                BUT....as one other poster to your thread noted, as I checked with my sonic tester, MANY port locations are too thin to go larger. And for the most part, the stock heads need more volume. There is a coupla places in Toms ports...that I CAN tell you...are too thin. Pretty, but thin.

                They want to digitize the port that Tom got is big numbers with. I noted in that thread...that in the heads that I've sonic checked...there is WAY too much wall variation, head to head AND port to port, within a single head.

                A couple years ago, I had a guy that had money and wanted "good" flowing heads but wanted them CNC ported so that all eight ports were the same (reasonable request..!). But after we talked a bit, I decided I didn't want to be part of a Stude head..."return" program, because an intake wall broke or leaked water..!

                As far as the exhaust, there is NO reason to go larger. There is a definate relationship of intake to exhaust flow that Tom and Jeff don't seem to understand. If it were possible to "decrease" the exhaust valve and bowl...I would. The exhaust ports already flow more than enough compared to the intakes (even highly modified ports). Even for supercharged engines..!

                As they say...been there, done that. Jeff makes a big deal out of talking to pro shops about porting. I actually took a stock head and one of my experimental heads to a "pro" shop that actually builds alum. heads and had them give them a good going over. They gave me a couple of ideas, told me I was doing a good job and off I went. The things they told me...worked, that's what got me over the 200cfm barrier.

                Long story short...my opinion...they are flirting with disaster. A leak may just be a leak in the exhaust port, but a water leak in an intake port could easilly be disasterous.

                Just my nickles worth..

                Later

                Mike

                Comment


                • #9
                  The best flow bench in the world, regardless of how well maintained is just a guess until it is in calibration with a known standard as Tom's is. Many shops give free advice. Playing mine is bigger than yours isn't how you use data from a flow bench or dyno. You do it to verify step by single step is an improvement or movement in the wrong direction. Many shops set their bench up to provide impressive numbers for customers that wouldn't know a good port from an outhouse. Tom is likely one of 3 people in the world working on Stude head improvements daily, not a project 10 years ago that worked so that's how we do it forever without ever going back to the bench for each and every port done. Tom is as humble a guy as you'll ever meet, but he went to great pains to verify his bench turned out the same numbers as benches used by the best pro's. Then he puts them on an engine and runs them for any doubters. Look at his times and see what he's doing. Not a talker but a true do-er. The Stude community could sure use more.
                  Last edited by jlmccuan; 03-04-2013, 02:38 PM.
                  Jim
                  Often in error, never in doubt
                  http://rabidsnailracing.blogspot.com/

                  ____1966 Avanti II RQA 0088_______________1963 Avanti R2 63R3152____________http://rabidsnailracing.blogspot.com/

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Mike,
                    You need to keep the head projects separate.
                    This thread is about ZennDog's raised port experiment, with the emphasis on experiment.

                    Tom did not build ZennDog's head.
                    All he was asked to do was flow it, and see what it was doing.
                    Sal thought it interesting enough to bring it over to the SDC forum, which is cool...

                    All your added pithy comments don't add to the conversation.
                    And they aren't related to this thread at all.

                    But the added comments about Tom's work, and Jeff's work are a tad off base.
                    Yes, I did, and will continue to, talk to professional people in my endeavor.
                    I don't take everything they say as gospel, but I do listen.
                    My quest for knowledge never ends.
                    There are a lot of things out in this world that I do not understand.
                    But I try to learn as much as possible.
                    Your dire warnings are not new, and they have been taken into consideration.
                    Steps were, and are, being taken to make sure problems are avoided.
                    Special tools were made to verify some needed measured areas.
                    A sonic tester has been in house for years for just that purpose.
                    Several heads have been sacrificed just to get good casting measurements.
                    And the heads Tom did for me are way more conservative that the full race heads he just flowed from the Chicken Hawk.
                    And those heads have dozens and dozens of passes on them with 20 pounds of boost.

                    I also do not try to denigrate the hard work of others by belittling their efforts, and trying to poison their marketplace.
                    There is a great saying out there in the real world.
                    "You will never make yourself look big by trying to make someone else look small"

                    I commend you for all the successful work that you have accomplished in your past.
                    Just how many high flow heads have you built, anyways?
                    Where are they now? What cars are they on?
                    What were their flow numbers?
                    All of the head work Tom did for me is up on the racing forum, complete with videos and flow numbers.
                    No secrets here. We did it all out in the open...Warts and all.
                    And Tom's flow bench has been calibrated against Meaux Racing Heads Super Flow 600 bench.

                    I know where most of Tom's heads are, and what they can do.
                    I know what Tom's flow bench is capable of, and how accurate his work is.
                    That's one reason other people are seeking him out to have their own stuff verified.
                    Tom uses the phrase "We race what we flow".. I sort of like it that way.

                    It's all good!
                    We all just want to build good stuff and go fast!
                    Let's try to do it together.
                    Our world is too small to try and see it split up for petty reasons.

                    Nuff said on my end...Probably too much...
                    Jeff



                    Hey Sal -
                    I just got back from the east coast for work (few weeks !).
                    While I can't see the video at work, and my home "dial-up" is to slow to try it that way....
                    I read the work Tom (and Jeff) are doing.
                    I did the same thing two/three years ago.
                    Back before I found someone that would build us roller cam shafts, all of my port flow testing stopped at .500" lift. I was using a well maintained Superflow 600, not Toms home made bench (flow value variation). Not blasting Toms bench at all, I just know from Tom and I talking, his bench read higher numbers than the Superflow 600 I was using...doing the same things, including a purely stock port..!

                    Anyway, I was able to get a repeatable 212cfm out of one port design. And that was at .500" lift. Now, with a few cams lifting to .640", I'd think around 220cfm is possible with that port.
                    BUT....as one other poster to your thread noted, as I checked with my sonic tester, MANY port locations are too thin to go larger. And for the most part, the stock heads need more volume. There is a coupla places in Toms ports...that I CAN tell you...are too thin. Pretty, but thin.

                    They want to digitize the port that Tom got is big numbers with. I noted in that thread...that in the heads that I've sonic checked...there is WAY too much wall variation, head to head AND port to port, within a single head.

                    A couple years ago, I had a guy that had money and wanted "good" flowing heads but wanted them CNC ported so that all eight ports were the same (reasonable request..!). But after we talked a bit, I decided I didn't want to be part of a Stude head..."return" program, because an intake wall broke or leaked water..!

                    As far as the exhaust, there is NO reason to go larger. There is a definate relationship of intake to exhaust flow that Tom and Jeff don't seem to understand. If it were possible to "decrease" the exhaust valve and bowl...I would. The exhaust ports already flow more than enough compared to the intakes (even highly modified ports). Even for supercharged engines..!

                    As they say...been there, done that. Jeff makes a big deal out of talking to pro shops about porting. I actually took a stock head and one of my experimental heads to a "pro" shop that actually builds alum. heads and had them give them a good going over. They gave me a couple of ideas, told me I was doing a good job and off I went. The things they told me...worked, that's what got me over the 200cfm barrier.
                    Long story short...my opinion...they are flirting with disaster. A leak may just be a leak in the exhaust port, but a water leak in an intake port could easilly be disasterous.
                    Just my nickles worth..
                    Later
                    Last edited by DEEPNHOCK; 03-04-2013, 04:38 PM. Reason: Spelling error
                    HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                    Jeff


                    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                    Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I made my post below when overdue for pain meds. I'll leave it unaltered except for the grammar edits made within minutes of the first submission so conversation here will stay in context. I'll stand by what was said, but I may have been able to say it in a more friendly tone. Any ruffled feathers have my apologies. Pain is an interesting conversation filter, or lack of filter.

                      We've kind of gotten away from the OP's point. Neat stuff is happening in the Stude world of performance. This is but one example. Sonny's racing site has a lot more and is a gateway to other sites and blogs of some pretty cool work. Many of us post performance related items there rather than the SDC site as Sonny's site is more pointed in its scope. If you find something there not on the SDC site, we're not trying to hide it. If it interesting to members here, feel free to post a link.

                      Back to the topic, what is the next iteration of these ports looking like and what was learned?
                      Jim
                      Often in error, never in doubt
                      http://rabidsnailracing.blogspot.com/

                      ____1966 Avanti II RQA 0088_______________1963 Avanti R2 63R3152____________http://rabidsnailracing.blogspot.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Sorry to offend Mr. Jeff. (and others)

                        As my note "starts" with, I can't see Sals comments other thAn what's actually written....! Or didn't you notice that ?

                        So, I appologize for mixing people and their work. Zenndog has done a lot of interesting work. Even showed me a few things I suspected, but didn't know.

                        But to the point you apparently missed, I was just attempting to pass on direct information I found out some time ago so that someone else (Tom and possibly yourself) may notice the possible problem and maybe not spend money that may hurt the bankbook.

                        And this comes from a proffessed Stude expert (yourself) that told me that a cam thrust button is required on my cam drive, for a Stude engine...! There is no such item and because of the Stude designers fine work, it's not even required.
                        Noting the information above, I'd be carefull about doing..at least engine work, and calling it the last word (yes, my words, not yours, but close) in (given area)....

                        Back to your point, I find no problem with anyone trying to coax more power out of a Stude cylinder head, I just find it quite funny when a VERY valid comment is made and you choose to ignore it...which I admit, is your perogative. But...noting that very thin areas ARE in the head that the pictures on the racing site show. I can say this as fact (unless the head is filled !)...just know "your" facts. I'd hate to see someone, even you...spend a lot of money for very little gain, since it "will" be a hit and miss endevor with the ports in the pictures shown.

                        Mike

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just so everyone knows... Mike has held a beef with me for years, both on the forums, and on PM's.
                          I'll let it go at that. He has his facts that he knows on his end, which is great.
                          But when he starts stating as fact things about someone else's work that he has absolutely no firsthand knowledge of, then it crosses a line.
                          Post apologies are nice, but it was said and it was not accurate.
                          That's all I will say about his replies.
                          I, too, will apologize for Mike on the forum...
                          Jeff



                          Originally posted by Mike Van Veghten View Post
                          Sorry to offend Mr. Jeff. (and others)

                          As my note "starts" with, I can't see Sals comments other thAn what's actually written....! Or didn't you notice that ?

                          So, I appologize for mixing people and their work. Zenndog has done a lot of interesting work. Even showed me a few things I suspected, but didn't know.

                          But to the point you apparently missed, I was just attempting to pass on direct information I found out some time ago so that someone else (Tom and possibly yourself) may notice the possible problem and maybe not spend money that may hurt the bankbook.

                          And this comes from a proffessed Stude expert (yourself) that told me that a cam thrust button is required on my cam drive, for a Stude engine...! There is no such item and because of the Stude designers fine work, it's not even required.
                          Noting the information above, I'd be carefull about doing..at least engine work, and calling it the last word (yes, my words, not yours, but close) in (given area)....

                          Back to your point, I find no problem with anyone trying to coax more power out of a Stude cylinder head, I just find it quite funny when a VERY valid comment is made and you choose to ignore it...which I admit, is your perogative. But...noting that very thin areas ARE in the head that the pictures on the racing site show. I can say this as fact (unless the head is filled !)...just know "your" facts. I'd hate to see someone, even you...spend a lot of money for very little gain, since it "will" be a hit and miss endevor with the ports in the pictures shown.

                          Mike
                          HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                          Jeff


                          Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                          Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Apropos of nothing: I picked up a copy of Canadian Hot Rods the other day, and it contains an ad for a company in Sherwood Park, Alberta called JMJ Enterprises. They offer a service called "extreme power port", abrasive putty porting, and claim it improves air velocity in runners and ports by 25%.

                            Anybody here ever heard of that?
                            Gord Richmond, within Weasel range of the Alberta Badlands

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by gordr View Post
                              Apropos of nothing: I picked up a copy of Canadian Hot Rods the other day, and it contains an ad for a company in Sherwood Park, Alberta called JMJ Enterprises. They offer a service called "extreme power port", abrasive putty porting, and claim it improves air velocity in runners and ports by 25%. Anybody here ever heard of that?
                              Hi, Gord,

                              Here in the states it's called "extrude honing". An abrasive slurry is pumped through an intake manifold and/or head port. It cuts aluminum fairly rapidly, but is so slow on cast iron as to be very expensive. It's often used on newer EFI intakes such as the Ford small blocks where the passages are inaccessible to hand porting.

                              In the "nothing new under the sun", I saw Smokey Yunick port a Hudson Hornet flathead 308" six-cylinder block that way in 1953. He borrowed a grout pump and ran a sandy cement mixture through each port for hours.

                              jack vines
                              PackardV8

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X