Best actual Ford cast 4V intake found

[Joe-JDC]

As many of you know, I have been porting since 1972, and specializing in Ford products, but branched out to anything needed, even tractor heads,  even four cylinder, six cylinder, and SOHC/DOHC late model heads, etc.  I thought I had ported every Ford cast aluminum intake that has a Ford part number on them, until last month.  I now have had two C6AE-9425-K "Sidewinder" intakes to flow and work on.  I had never seen one of these, and I have ported a lot of -"J" Sidewinders over the years.  These two "K" intakes average 338-339 cfm as cast.  That is better than the "J" intake by at least 30 cfm, and 40 or more better than the -F.  Better than a Performer RPM as cast, and better than the BT as cast.  How many of you actually have one of these?  Supposedly came on a few real 427 Fairlanes, and 427 Cobras, but I have not verified that at this point.   I would be interested in buying one if I could find one reasonably priced to add to my collection.  Joe-JDC

[cleandan]

Sorry Joe, I don't have a (K) sidewinder.
I am curious what you found in the casting design that gives the better flow ability?

[Joe-JDC]

The distance between the pushrod tubes is over 1.500" allowing for wider ports as cast for one thing.  Has some unique features that make me wonder if they were meant for marine usage, also.  Joe-JDC

[Joe-JDC]

Hit post accidentally before adding pictures.  The studs on ports #1 and #5 are unique to Ford intakes that I have seen.  Joe-JDC

[Jim Kramer]

I have two sidewinders, a "J" and a "K". The J has had some home porting done on it, so I can't compare the ports, and I've never ran the K on anything so I can't offer any info on it performance wise. One thing I will say is that the one you have there is a lot cleaner than mine ..........Jim Kramer

[RJP]

The distance between the pushrod tubes is over 1.500" allowing for wider ports as cast for one thing.  Has some unique features that make me wonder if they were meant for marine usage, also.  Joe-JDC

I doubt they were for marine use as aluminum does not get along well with raw sea water, salt or even fresh water. Marine intake manifolds were almost all iron. Only departure from iron was with crate engines that wound up in hot boats such as Sangers, Hondos, Rayson Crafts etc. In the 60s I remember crate engines stacked up in the Vic Hubbard's warehouse as they, V/H were big into the V-drive-hotboat scene. That would be about the only use of any aluminum manifold used in marine application that I am aware of. Boat builders such as Chris-Craft, Stephens, Tollycraft, etc usually used the marine/industrial FEs that were the complete marine package consisting of iron water cooled exhaust, marine cooling systems [both closed or open systems] cast oil pans, and front & rear mounting, usually cast in iron as well. Weight was not a big factor in say a 36' Chris, Connie using twin 427 engines, one being a counter rotating engine.   

[Joe-JDC]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

[Stangman]

Best guess on #5 is coil bracket and #1 an accessory mounting spot. Of course that’s a guess. Joe do yo have a pic of the two manifolds right next to each other, the K manifold looks like the upper plenum are huge. I have an F-427 and that looks bigger

[427John]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

Maybe for mounting the fuel log used with Le Mans bowl Holleys used on those engines?Or possibly for the turkey pan that surrounded the carb?

[Joe-JDC]

I do not have a picture of the two side by side, they came to me at different times.  I think I will take a picture tomorrow of a RPM, BT, and this K side by side.  The plenum is huge, for sure.  Joe-JDC

[mbrunson427]

We have both, I'll pull them out of the mezzanine and take some side by side pictures. I had never noticed any difference, but now I'm curious.

[gt350hr]

    The manifold was used on Nascar engines. Special parts at Ford had to be "funded" by accounting before they could be made. Dennis K might be able to see the original blueprint and the notes on it.

[1967 XR7 GT]

Hi Joe

Question: You said the "K" as cast flows better than the "J" by as much as, at least 30 cfm & 40 or more better than the "F", my question is
about the finished porting, is the "K"'s ported flow better than the "J" & "F"'s ported flow ?  Or is it just the as cast flow, that's better ?

And is there any difference in the "J" & "F"'s ported flow ?

Thanks

[Joe-JDC]

The "K" ended up about 20 cfm better average than the "J" sidewinders.  It is difficult to get a -"F" to average over 360 or so.  The "K" beats that by over 30 cfm after porting.  Joe-JDC

[Jim Kramer]

I can't tell ant difference

[Joe-JDC]

Measure the depth of the carb pad to the floor of each side of the plenum.  Measure the width of the ports as cast if possible.  Measure the width between the pushrod holes.  I went back and checked flow numbers, and there has to be something not visibly apparent for the differences.  Joe-JDC

[Jim Kramer]

Well, the "K" plenum is actually about 1/16 of an inch deeper than the "J", on both sides. The pushrod holes are actually closer together on the K, however the holes themselves are considerably bigger. I'll try to get more exact measurements tomorrow when I can get better light on the subject. The J has had some port work on it, so unfortunately I can't compare port size........Jim 

[Stangman]

I thought it was going to be a big difference by eye. Maybe I’m thinking of my F 427.

[gt350hr]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

    Joe the GT40 engines with aluminum heads had a magnesium "in line" not sidewinder intake. Sidewinders were a Nascar thing because the pass side bank ran richer on left turn ( oval) tracks so the carb was offset to correct it. I too am puzzled by the two stands.
  Randy

[Joe-JDC]

Yes, I agree on the NASCAR usage of the Sidewinder intakes.  I grew up in SC, so was right in the middle of that in the late '50s, '60s when I was drafted in 1966 into the military.  Bud Moore's shop was not too far away in Spartanburg SC, and lots of fast "moonshiner" cars around with transplanted engines.  Ford vs Chev was a big deal where I grew up, and not many other brands around at the time.  Joe-JDC

[Jim Kramer]

I measured the plenum depth...4.33/2.32 for the K, 4.28/2.26 for the J, measured as near to the center of the opening as I could eyeball. I couldn't see a lot of difference in the pushrod hole centerlines. As close as I could measure they were both 2.12/2.13. The only thing I can see for sure is the plenum depth that while small is defiantly there. There must be some more extensive internal differences, but I'm not clever enough  to discern them........Jim

[wowens]

Joe,
Do you think this intake would make the best 1 4bbl street intake ?

[427John]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

    Joe the GT40 engines with aluminum heads had a magnesium "in line" not sidewinder intake. Sidewinders were a Nascar thing because the pass side back ran richer on left turn ( oval) tracks so the carb was offset to correct it. I too am puzzled by the two stands.
  Randy

Do you mean inline as in not offset to one side?Surely not inline as in autolite inline 4 bbl.Would that be an SK or XE marked intake?

[Joe-JDC]

Any off the shelf/as cast aluminum intake manifold that fits the FE, and flows 338 cfm average matches or exceeds most of the heads available out of the box for the FE.  For years, the HR was the top tier FE, next TP, and then MR, CJ, and all the others,(SOHC excluded)  Today, there are aluminum heads available with CNC programs that struggle to have an honest 338 cfm airflow at any reasonable valve lift.  The KC Stage II heads only flow 338 cfm on my bench at .750" lift, and the TFS actually go turbulent and back up above ~.620" lift to 320ish cfm.  A Pond, KC III, or BBM special CNC program that I have flowed still don't go much higher flow than 345-350 cfm without some tweaking.  They claim 360, 370, or higher, but I have not personally had that flow on my machine.  Jay Brown sent me a BT HR head that flowed 393 cfm IIRC, and that is the best FE head until his new head came along.  So, yes, the "K" Sidewinder would be a very good intake for just about any healthy FE on the street.  For performance, porting a RPM, Victor 427, TFS Track Heat, BT MR, can be opened up to flow 390 cfm and up.  A 300 cfm head needs a 330 cfm intake manifold for the street, and a 310 cfm head needs 340 cfm intake manifold.  A 340 cfm head for race needs a 410 cfm intake manifold.  The TFS Track Heat is the only 4V intake that comes close out of the box to that number, and exceeds it with a simple cartridge roll of the port to match a MR gasket.   Joe-JDC

[cammerfe]

In regard to Sidewinder manifolds, the first one I ever saw was brought into the Corban Shop one evening by Al Buckmaster and Jack Roush. (Corban was the shop from which John Corrunker ran his 'one-of-the-first-dozen' CJ Mustangs, a Super E Auto car. It was a 'dollar' car, delivered through Romy Hammes Ford in South Bend IN.) Those who remember that time will recall that, although the factory carburetor had to be retained, any intake manifold could be introduced to hold it.

There was a period of time when we went through a manifold-of-the-week scenario and the manifold that Jack and Al brought us that evening was fresh from the experimental foundry close by Gate 4 at the Rouge. This particular item was completely without markings except for the firing order to be seen on the top front. Al was the manifold guy, and told us that, since we were running an automatic car, we'd need to insert a front-to-back vertical divider into the completely open plenum. It would also be necessary to add material to the bottoms of the runners at the head interface to properly support the gaskets to match with the CJ heads.

By the time John sent the manifold out for that work and got it back, something else was thought to be even better and the manifold was put on a shelf for a number of months. I was driving a '67 Cougar at the time, and got enough parts together to build a 427 for it. John gave me the manifold and I finished the machining and put it on the car when I did the swap.

Al said, during that evening's bull session, that the reason for the offset was that, on a flow bench, that configuration aided in promoting the best possible runner-to-runner balance. I'd have to believe that the delivery of that manifold to Corban would have been prior to any use by a NASCAR team.

KS

[gt350hr]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

    Joe the GT40 engines with aluminum heads had a magnesium "in line" not sidewinder intake. Sidewinders were a Nascar thing because the pass side back ran richer on left turn ( oval) tracks so the carb was offset to correct it. I too am puzzled by the two stands.
  Randy

Do you mean inline as in not offset to one side?Surely not inline as in autolite inline 4 bbl.Would that be an SK or XE marked intake?

     We called the "centered carb" ( side to side) an "inline" and the sidewinder had the carb offset to the driver's side. In my extensive searches for SK and XE parts , I have never seen an FE intake for an Autolite inline carb as FE development was over by then .For special parts to be made in EEE at Ford , there had to be a purpose or proposal ( for funding purposes) submitted and approved. I have hundreds of pages of SK part numbers and description with dates. Since there wasn't a logical need for the intake "I" don't believe one was ever created. I will NEVER claim to have seen it all , but I have seen allot of stuff others haven't.
     Randy

[gt350hr]

In regard to Sidewinder manifolds, the first one I ever saw was brought into the Corban Shop one evening by Al Buckmaster and Jack Roush. (Corban was the shop from which John Corrunker ran his 'one-of-the-first-dozen' CJ Mustangs, a Super E Auto car. It was a 'dollar' car, delivered through Romy Hammes Ford in South Bend IN.) Those who remember that time will recall that, although the factory carburetor had to be retained, any intake manifold could be introduced to hold it.

There was a period of time when we went through a manifold-of-the-week scenario and the manifold that Jack and Al brought us that evening was fresh from the experimental foundry close by Gate 4 at the Rouge. This particular item was completely without markings except for the firing order to be seen on the top front. Al was the manifold guy, and told us that, since we were running an automatic car, we'd need to insert a front-to-back vertical divider into the completely open plenum. It would also be necessary to add material to the bottoms of the runners at the head interface to properly support the gaskets to match with the CJ heads.

By the time John sent the manifold out for that work and got it back, something else was thought to be even better and the manifold was put on a shelf for a number of months. I was driving a '67 Cougar at the time, and got enough parts together to build a 427 for it. John gave me the manifold and I finished the machining and put it on the car when I did the swap.

Al said, during that evening's bull session, that the reason for the offset was that, on a flow bench, that configuration aided in promoting the best possible runner-to-runner balance. I'd have to believe that the delivery of that manifold to Corban would have been prior to any use by a NASCAR team.

KS

   Al was part of the Advanced Engineering "upstairs" guys and was THE designer of the infamous "Canadian Cobra Jet" head that Bruce Sizemore had made. I was told Al has some health issues currently and "selfishly" I hope he gets well as I have a peculiar Boss 302 , two piece dual four intake I would like to ask him about. I already spoke with Bob Corn and he suggested Al as the possible "creator" as Bob had never seen it. Same for Bob Wendland who also worked allot with Al. Al deserves a TON of credit for the MAJOR parts he designed.
   Randy

[mike7570]

.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

Raised studs on #1 & #5 on this intake also. I was looking for one for my Shelby project but couldn't find one.

[SSdynosaur]

Also, one of the nicest individuals you could ever expect to meet. During late '69 Jack Roush connected me with a fellow named Billy Williams, from the X garage, that had two sets of SK MR heads he wanted to sell. I went to Dearborn, made the purchase then met Jack at their small shop off an alleyway to prevail on him to prep the used heads for NHRA Super Stock. Al, who I had previously known along with Jack from the "Gold Rush" cars, was present at Jack's shop and said "I'd be happy to work on those heads". A couple of weeks later I installed the heads, without any other changes to the engine, and the car instantly picked up -0.16 sec and nearly +3 mph in a quarter. I called Al to report and he had further suggestions resulting in another -0.1 sec. An absolutely amazing person to talk with and seemed to dearly love what he was doing for Ford. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

[gt350hr]

 Al worked with Smokey Yunick on an aluminum 351C head for an Indy 'stock block" project in '68. Smokey was directed to Al after he flow benched a "not yet released 351GT ( 351C4V) head" , and found it would go turbulent around .600 lift and got worse with porting. Al laughed and made the aluminum head "good to .800 without a sound" in about a week's time. I talked to Al once on the phone about the heads ( I have 3 pair at the moment) long ago and when I asked about the poor flowing exhaust he said the reason he made the high port plates was to allow better headers to be made for the Pro Stock Pinto frames . He very kindly explained several "secrets" as to how to make the stock (low) exhaust port work. He didn't know me from Adam but felt he could help me and boy did he! All very unselfishly . He is a real gentleman , passionate about Ford engine performance.
   Randy

[plovett]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

[427John]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

    Joe the GT40 engines with aluminum heads had a magnesium "in line" not sidewinder intake. Sidewinders were a Nascar thing because the pass side back ran richer on left turn ( oval) tracks so the carb was offset to correct it. I too am puzzled by the two stands.
  Randy

Do you mean inline as in not offset to one side?Surely not inline as in autolite inline 4 bbl.Would that be an SK or XE marked intake?

     We called the "centered carb" ( side to side) an "inline" and the sidewinder had the carb offset to the driver's side. In my extensive searches for SK and XE parts , I have never seen an FE intake for an Autolite inline carb as FE development was over by then .For special parts to be made in EEE at Ford , there had to be a purpose or proposal ( for funding purposes) submitted and approved. I have hundreds of pages of SK part numbers and description with dates. Since there wasn't a logical need for the intake "I" don't believe one was ever created. I will NEVER claim to have seen it all , but I have seen allot of stuff others haven't.
     Randy

Did the magnesium intake have an SK or XE number or did it have a standard type casting number,and if so do you remember what it was?

[mike7570]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

[gt350hr]

Years ago, in early '70s, there were about 40 or so of the 427 engines sold for use on Lake Havasu boats with the aluminum heads with the "X" on them.  They were sold as GT-40 crate engines.  I had the aluminum heads in my hands back then, and they were really porous, as history will acknowledge.  I am just wondering if the intakes on those engines were the "K" variety.  What stumps me is the two raised studs on the intake ports.  Anyone know what they were used for?  Especially the #1 port.  Joe-JDC

    Joe the GT40 engines with aluminum heads had a magnesium "in line" not sidewinder intake. Sidewinders were a Nascar thing because the pass side back ran richer on left turn ( oval) tracks so the carb was offset to correct it. I too am puzzled by the two stands.
  Randy

Do you mean inline as in not offset to one side?Surely not inline as in autolite inline 4 bbl.Would that be an SK or XE marked intake?

     We called the "centered carb" ( side to side) an "inline" and the sidewinder had the carb offset to the driver's side. In my extensive searches for SK and XE parts , I have never seen an FE intake for an Autolite inline carb as FE development was over by then .For special parts to be made in EEE at Ford , there had to be a purpose or proposal ( for funding purposes) submitted and approved. I have hundreds of pages of SK part numbers and description with dates. Since there wasn't a logical need for the intake "I" don't believe one was ever created. I will NEVER claim to have seen it all , but I have seen allot of stuff others haven't.
     Randy

Did the magnesium intake have an SK or XE number or did it have a standard type casting number,and if so do you remember what it was?

   None that I have owned or seen had a part number OR an SK/XE stamped nmber. They were cast by RC Industries in OH along with the magnesium and aluminum water pumps which did have XE numbers on them.
   Randy

[plovett]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

That's pretty cool!  But not measuring cfm?  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

[cjshaker]

That's pretty cool!  But not measuring cfm?  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

Looks like a valve to me.

[frnkeore]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

I 'm assuming he asking about the smoke that is in the air stream, rather than the valve.

[427mach1]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

I 'm assuming he asking about the smoke that is in the air stream, rather than the valve.

Yes, that is a small flow viz wind tunnel equipped with a smoke rake.  Most flow viz smoke is vaporized propylene glycol.

[plovett]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

I 'm assuming he asking about the smoke that is in the air stream, rather than the valve.

Thanks Frank.  Yes, I was talking about the smoke, not the valve. 

[plovett]

When did flowbenches come into use by the big three, or Ford, or others like Smokey Yunick? 

thanks,

pl

  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

I 'm assuming he asking about the smoke that is in the air stream, rather than the valve.

Yes, that is a small flow viz wind tunnel equipped with a smoke rake.  Most flow viz smoke is vaporized propylene glycol.

I did not know that.  Thanks!

[plovett]

That's pretty cool!  But not measuring cfm?  Also, what is the visible substance in the flow?

Thanks!

pl

Looks like a valve to me.

My question was not very specific.    I wonder what Smokey was discerning from watching the smoke flow past the valve in an open space?

pl

[frnkeore]

Maybe testing back cuts and/or turbulence flow over the valve head.

[Joe-JDC]

Why do you think they called him "smokey"?  LOL.  Joe-JDC

[plovett]

Why do you think they called him "smokey"?  LOL.  Joe-JDC

Ha ha! I read it was because one of his racing vehicles created a smoke trail like a General Electric J79!  Either that or it was that thing in his mouth.   Sorry for the hijack, Joe!

paulie

[plovett]

Maybe testing back cuts and/or turbulence flow over the valve head.

I would guess you are right, Frank.  I just don't know how much I would be able to tell by the smoke pattern.  That is, how would you interpret it, since it is visual?   Would Smokey just be looking for the smoothest flow and assume that is best? Or something else?  I don't know. 

paulie

[WConley]

I built a similar smoke tunnel in undergrad school for a GE aircraft engine project.  We were looking at improving fuel mixing in afterburners.  The smoke really helps you visualize turbulence and vortex action.

I can tell you that it's quite hard to make smoke work at high flow velocities!  I had to make a mineral oil burner that ran at high air pressure for that tunnel.  It finally worked well after many re-designs, and we got lots of cool data.  I like to think the improved F-14 D was able to go just a bit faster on less fuel thanks to our work 

[427mach1]

I can tell you that it's quite hard to make smoke work at high flow velocities!

Yes, it is!  I worked for 34+ years at the Lockheed Martin Low Speed Wind Tunnel and over half of our testing was automotive (see my avatar photo).  Our smoke generator was good for about 40 mph, anything higher and the smoke plume becomes too thin.

[frnkeore]

Maybe testing back cuts and/or turbulence flow over the valve head.

I would guess you are right, Frank.  I just don't know how much I would be able to tell by the smoke pattern.  That is, how would you interpret it, since it is visual?   Would Smokey just be looking for the smoothest flow and assume that is best? Or something else?  I don't know. 

paulie

I think the way Smokey approached things, he tried to leave no stone, unturned and my only guess, as I stated, was he was looking for clues, in how the back cut and valve head worked, if it was me, I would also have been testing different margin shapes, too and I doubt that he would over look that either.

Whether or not, it would be directly applicable to a port, I can't say as port velocity is much higher and differently shaped than his a open tunnel.  That said, aero flow has been well documented, since the '30's and most aero flow has the same basics. We wouldn't still be using poppet valves if, there was a more reliable way to open and close the opening.

Between '78 & '80, I worked at ELLCO Engineering (AKA Experimental Engineering), in Irvine, CA. In those years, we worked on the stealth and cruise missile R&D programs. I wasn't a Model Maker but, work directly with them, doing the machining needed. I made supersonic wind tunnel models, out of solid PH17-4 SS for the Tennessee wind tunnel and templates, used in "splining"  the subsonic models. It was extremely interesting stuff and I went on to study aerodynamics, while I work there and to make the plug, mold and the finished rear wing, on my race car below.

Two of the things that I learned, that apply to porting, is that all transitions need to follow a radius and when transitions exceed 12 deg, stall will kick in at that point or  shorty after, w/o something else to control it. In wings, that would be a slot or slat. Another thing that impressed me, is the difference between subsonic and super sonic flow. They need COMPLETELY different designs and I assume, what you hear in a port, when it gets "noisy" is the turbulence of transonic flow, if it's approaching that speed or just turbulence, if not. As I understand it, good port flow, is <300 fps and transonic is around 8-900 fps. I'm not a porter and have never ran a flow bench, maybe Joe could speak more to that.

[plovett]

Maybe testing back cuts and/or turbulence flow over the valve head.

I would guess you are right, Frank.  I just don't know how much I would be able to tell by the smoke pattern.  That is, how would you interpret it, since it is visual?   Would Smokey just be looking for the smoothest flow and assume that is best? Or something else?  I don't know. 

paulie

I think the way Smokey approached things, he tried to leave no stone, unturned and my only guess, as I stated, was he was looking for clues, in how the back cut and valve head worked, if it was me, I would also have been testing different margin shapes, too and I doubt that he would over look that either.

Whether or not, it would be directly applicable to a port, I can't say as port velocity is much higher and differently shaped than his a open tunnel.  That said, aero flow has been well documented, since the '30's and most aero flow has the same basics. We wouldn't still be using poppet valves if, there was a more reliable way to open and close the opening.

Between '78 & '80, I worked at ELLCO Engineering (AKA Experimental Engineering), in Irvine, CA. In those years, we worked on the stealth and cruise missile R&D programs. I wasn't a Model Maker but, work directly with them, doing the machining needed. I made supersonic wind tunnel models, out of solid PH17-4 SS for the Tennessee wind tunnel and templates, used in "splining"  the subsonic models. It was extremely interesting stuff and I went on to study aerodynamics, while I work there and to make the plug, mold and the finished rear wing, on my race car below.

Two of the things that I learned, that apply to porting, is that all transitions need to follow a radius and when transitions exceed 12 deg, stall will kick in at that point or  shorty after, w/o something else to control it. In wings, that would be a slot or slat. Another thing that impressed me, is the difference between subsonic and super sonic flow. They need COMPLETELY different designs and I assume, what you hear in a port, when it gets "noisy" is the turbulence of transonic flow, if it's approaching that speed or just turbulence, if not. As I understand it, good port flow, is <300 fpm and transonic is around 8-900 fpm. I'm not a porter and have never ran a flow bench, maybe Joe could speak more to that.

Interesting stuff.  Thanks!

Anybody know if Smokey used flow benches as we know them today, on a cylinder head measuring flow quantitatively?

pl

[gt350hr]

   Ford had a flow bench in '62 or 63 IIRC.

[Joey120373]

I still remember reading one of Smokey’s books back in high school. In that book, he talked about his his flow bench and how unique it was.it’s been way to many years ago now but what I do remember is that it was not a conventional “bench”, rather it was an engine block, modified to let him test the heads and intake while it was bolted to a real block.
At least that’s the way I remember it. But that was 30 years ago so.....

[gt350hr]

 One of the first "out here" in Ca was Jerry Branch , Branch Flowmetrics. he was known mainly for motorcycle work but Ak Miller and other V8 guys used him. Larry Ofria at Valley Head Service was also one the early guys to have one. I think Ford set him up with his.
  Randy