When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
i was thinking about removing walls in the cylinder heads and intake thats nearby each other
lets show you some pictures :
i mean completely remove the walls
for example if you have 170cc on each side , if you remove the walls you have 170 + 170 = 340 + 10-20cc for the wall , that mean about 360 cc in each side
also we have the firing order 1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2.
so nearby cylinders have time to suck more air
this is just an idea , the problem is if you want to do it in exhaust side you cant do it in the 1-2-7-8 cylinders because the exiting ports are alone and you wont have the same capacity of runners
And you'll kill any chance of making power, It's not about how big an opening is when porting it's about moving as much air as possible without hurting velocity. Removing that material will kill velocity=power. If you want to learn start by learning how and why porting works. There is plenty of information on the subject.
Like LLL said, it's about velocity. Flow is based on tube size AND air velocity. Making the tube too big hurts velocity and therefore flow. This is true for intake and exhaust. You want the SMALLEST tube for your given airflow without restriction.
The 2-per-cylinder is different because its feeding the same cylinder.
On our engines, without the wall there there would be way more turbulence at the valve due to being pushed and pulled from one valve to the other. Turbulence is a power-killer. Also, you'd then have what is essentially a 360cc intake runner for a street car. That's a ridiculously large volume and your car would fall flat on its face. There's no way for a 350 to make use of it.
No haters here......well other than the fact that I would hate to see him ruin a good set of heads trying something that goes against everything known about how to make power.
The 2-per-cylinder is different because its feeding the same cylinder.
On our engines, without the wall there there would be way more turbulence at the valve due to being pushed and pulled from one valve to the other. Turbulence is a power-killer. Also, you'd then have what is essentially a 360cc intake runner for a street car. That's a ridiculously large volume and your car would fall flat on its face. There's no way for a 350 to make use of it.
Add in valve overlap and this situation gets much worse. I mean at that point, why have runners? Plenum, meet valve.
SBC Heads have been around since the mid 1950's with people like Grumpy Jenkins, Smokey Yunick, Junior Johnson, Rick Hendricks, Duntov, Yates, Ray Evernham and hundreds more that spent countless hours and money to squeeze more power out of them. Never ever saw that dividing wall removed. Don't waste your time and money taking that dividing wall out.
if you are talking about N/A you're right , but how about turbocharging?
exhaust ports are small and have velocity so they are good for rotating turbo, intake ports have big runners and the turbo pushes air into them and they can accept more air !
unfortunately there is no more ltx heads available in my country so this is so risky to me
if you are talking about N/A you're right , but how about turbocharging?
exhaust ports are small and have velocity so they are good for rotating turbo, intake ports have big runners and the turbo pushes air into them and they can accept more air !
unfortunately there is no more ltx heads available in my country so this is so risky to me
Not needed for a turbo application, A good normally ported head will be more than enough. If you want to ruin a set of heads then hack away but I'm 100% certain you will not see any improvement doing it and will most likely end up throwing the heads in the garbage.
06-15-2016, 10:02 PM
new idea about porting heads ! lets discuss 
