Automatically adjusting intake ports

[mpgmike]

I have been using Powre Lynz for about 2 years now and finally came up with a test that would prove or disprove a controversial claim; that the ports constrict at low flow and open up at higher flow demands. I found a test that strongly suggests that this is indeed happening. I invite you to read about it and look at the numbers posted and give constructive feedback. Check it out here:

Powre Haus » Collapsible Boundary Layer

Mike

[detobias]

very interesting & nice work !

I suggest doing the same test (3 different pressure drops) with a stock port to see if the conversions *do* line up ; that would help to further substantiate your claims

[DirectConnection]

You findings may be true, but there are a few things to consider. #1) my 10" #s typically flow a tad less than my co-workers bench at 28" #2) 10" to 28" covers alot of ground Meaning... there's 18" of depression between the two. So, the amount of error will obviously be greater than the 28" to 34" comparison. #3) Try the same test with a stock, untouched head and see if the variance is your power lynz or just the nature of the gap between test pressures. I'd back it up with a stock head, and then ONLY perform the power lynz method of your's to the same head and see what hapens from there.

Comparing to baseline info is very important and cannot be argued afterwards. Right?

I am doing an exhaust manifold flowtest. I've done a stocker, a FM ported stocker, a Typert and an ABM header probably tomorrow. I need someone to lend me their FM TBI header or anything else. Results will be in an upcoming SDAC newsletter and then posted on "the other forum." So far, the results have been just as eye opening or more than my intake flowest article in SDAC from last year.

[scott_s]

Perhaps see if Mike has the time to supply a ported stock unit for testing too.

Have a URL to the intake testing results for those that did not see the SDAC newsletter?

[DirectConnection]

Sorry... not allowed to post it here. This is why I have argued
the linking to other sites to the new forum owner. To share information.

PM me your email address and I'll give you a link or type it all out in an email.(very cumbersome that way)

[puppet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DirectConnection Sorry... not allowed to post it here.

The information or the link to it Steve?

[DirectConnection]

Quote:

Originally Posted by puppet The information or the link to it Steve?

The link as it's a tm thread.

PM me your email and I'll send you the info I have that way.

[mpgmike]

My intent for posting these results is to spark interest from people that have better access to equipment (like a flow bench as I have to run heads up to the machine shop to have them flowed). I am proposing that texturing the intake ports creates benefits, and have some data to support that claim. The chosen vehicle is screw threads. Dana44 from another forum uses the scallops caused by a chattering carbide bit as his vehicle and claims very positive results.

If other head porters were to take this subject seriously enough to devise their own tests, and perhaps their own frorm of texturing, this whole "port texturing" theory could be refined into very predictable data. Sharing this info puts into the hands of customers better products, regardless of whom the porter is. As a head porter, I'm sharing this info with hopes of getting back testing data from other head porters so that my own process can be improved.

If this is as significant as I think, then it should be shared. It is a tuning tool and not a means to an end (my thoughts on the Somender Grooves as well). So what I'm doing is giving away one of my trade secrets in hopes that the process can be refined by the hands and minds of others.

Mike

[cj011]

what is the biggest heap of b.s. about the not linking is that the other sites link to here with no problems. The admin have their head up their ass on this one. Also here we can link to other non turbo dodge sites without problem. Funny how the rules are bent to only go after a few sites.

[Turbo Joe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cj011 what is the biggest heap of b.s. about the not linking is that the other sites link to here with no problems. The admin have their head up their ass on this one. Also here we can link to other non turbo dodge sites without problem. Funny how the rules are bent to only go after a few sites.

this subject has been covered way to many times already. Thank Frank for this. If Frank and others weren't backdoor recruiting then this wouldn't have happened. Now step away from this subject. Nobody really wants to hear it anymore. It starts off with mild bashing then turns into name calling and someone gets warning points or banned, cause they lost there temper...
Nuff said about this... now please go back to the thread subject MPGMIKE has been carring on here. Its definatly interesting.

[Jack's Dodge]

Seemed a good post to bring to light again. Has anyone did any "hands-on" work with this tuning tool? As I no longer have a TD, my neon became my test subject. Never did any head porting before; honestly believed it was beyond me. Have yet to save the cash for the head MPG Mike did for me, so I mocked up one. Took a dohc head and began cutting away. Did not have access to the tools Mike has, so the dremel was the next best thing. Here are some pics of MPG Mike's work:



And here is the combustion chamber of the dohc head Mike did for me:



Here are some pics of my efforts over the past two weeks or so:







In ingtake side has been done. Since Mike made his own custom tools to texture the intake runner, the cutting saw on my dremel did a decent job. Will have pics up later today.

[looneytuner]

I think we need a aerospace engineer here. I know Mc Donell and Douglas used to encourage employees to use the equipment during down times for their own projects.
That was 40 years ago though. The last development I heard of like that, the company patented the info and I had to sign a contract before the lecture. If I use the info, it cost me $350 per unit (pianos) to use it.

[tkelly27]

Quote:

Originally Posted by looneytuner I think we need a aerospace engineer here. I know Mc Donell and Douglas used to encourage employees to use the equipment during down times for their own projects. That was 40 years ago though. The last development I heard of like that, the company patented the info and I had to sign a contract before the lecture. If I use the info, it cost me $350 per unit (pianos) to use it.

Or just a grad student that needs a project

[cj011]

Is it just me or does the DOHC scream please dear God raise the port floors.

[RyanJ]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpgmike I am proposing that texturing the intake ports creates benefits, and have some data to support that claim. The chosen vehicle is screw threads. Dana44 from another forum uses the scallops caused by a chattering carbide bit as his vehicle and claims very positive results. If other head porters were to take this subject seriously enough to devise their own tests, and perhaps their own frorm of texturing, this whole "port texturing" theory could be refined into very predictable data. If this is as significant as I think, . Mike

Intake port surface finish HAS been hashed & re-hashed over and over & over by alot of very noted head porters & engine builders. Your ideas are not new.... It's just that most of the ones playing with this stuff don't share their info/research.

What you are trying to do is create a thicker turbulent boundry layer. It looks great on paper, but every back to back test I have ever heard of on a dyno has showed absolutely zero difference. I know of one noted NHRA Pro Stock builder on the East coast here who was playing with wild textured surface finishes as recently as year ago and saw no gains. No offense, but go get your hands on some Nascar or current NHRA Comp Eliminator or P/S heads and see what they are doing for surface finish. I've had a bunch of Current Nascar P7 Dodge heads in my hands, along with CFE Comp eliminator heads etc. It's nothing "exotic" Most of that stuff is sand rolled with a 60 or an 80 roll to eliminate the "step over" lines from the CNC. Now there is some benefit to "chattering up" the intake seats at the throat area. This helps both with wet flow & also with slowing the airspeed slightly as it is crossing the seat angles.

Sorry, but just my semi educated opinion having ported alot of high end heads over the years, at least on a Naturally aspirated motor (the ones that actually take alot of thinking to make HP out of) There is no benefit ever been shown from a rough surface finish of any kind. And if it does'nt work in NA application like I said that takes everything you can to make power with, I really doubt you'd see any gain an a boosted application either. I used to beat my brain on this very subject for years, I would look at ports & swear a rough carbide intake port HAD to make more power than a smooth one... It just seemed "logical" And yet whenever I talked to guys who had tried it on the big $ stuff it never made anything. After seeing enough big $ heads in person that had very smooth sand roll intake ports, I came to the realization it has to be a pipe dream.

One thing I will say in your defense, is that it won't HURT anything..... so.... Add all the lines/texture you want. It definitely makes it look different/neat.

My best advice would be to start spending more time playing with valve seat angles/widths/top cuts/valve radiuses/back cuts, now there is some-where you can make or break a head power wise. 100 hours of reserach on the seats will yield 100X more power gains than playing with surface finish.