Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads

[mike7570]

I hope you get enough interest to proceed with it though. The TP is probably my Favorite looking engine.

The only visual difference is the intake, I had a single plane with a dominator flange on my super-gas car one year at Pomona. At tech I had a door bar come up about .004 thin, I took it over to Hansen's to get it changed quickly. While there Roy Hill walks in and actually stops and takes a good look at my engine. Made me smile, it did look a bit racier with the dominator vs the 660's. (maybe it was the Mercury valve covers )

[jbamber]

I'm not saying anything, to throw water on anybody's ideas. I just wanted to comment, on stuff from the late 60's thru mid 70's........

No worries here – your experience is a great example of why we chose the tunnel port head to improve.  We believe the Tunnel Port has tremendous untapped potential, and our goal is to fully tap that potential.

My question to jbamber is, what valve head sizes will be run in the canted vs a inline head.

We won’t know the valve sizes until we are finished developing the flow.   Given the tremendous space constraint of the stock valve cover, the valve angle and cant will be very limited.  I doubt the sizes will be significantly different than are commonly used for the “in-line” FE heads.  Dave is REALLY good with exhaust flow, so you will probably notice a bit bigger exhaust/intake valve size difference than is typical.

It would have been a lot easier for us to repurpose the 385 Boss Hemi design to fit the FE – which would have significantly larger valves, and more performance potential.  However, we felt the FE community would rather have the maximum performance possible while using stock valve covers and manifolds – as close to a “factory” look as possible.

Weather or not you go ahead with it....please post more pics of your development units, that thing is just plain cool!

Thank you for the kind words!  Not all of our prototype heads turn out as cool as the BBF Boss head did.  Until recently, we 3d printed them.  Dave prefers to work with aluminum, and the time I had to spend altering the model so it was conducive for 3d printing provided no further benefit.  By doing them from aluminum, my programming time is leveraged when we machine the production heads.

[cjshaker]

Until recently, we 3d printed them.  Dave prefers to work with aluminum, and the time I had to spend altering the model so it was conducive for 3d printing provided no further benefit.  By doing them from aluminum, my programming time is leveraged when we machine the production heads.

You were 3D printing heads? That's interesting, because typically 3D printing hasn't been thought of as advanced enough to make parts capable of taking high heat and/or stress loads. That changed when I saw some videos of gun barrel/slides in 45 caliber that were 3D printed. They went through some rigorous testing that seemed to prove out the technology. To me,it seemed that if it could take the chamber pressures of a 45 caliber cartridge, it could withstand automotive engine applications. I hadn't seen anything since those videos though, and that was a few years ago.

[jbamber]

You were 3D printing heads?

OOPs.  I meant prototype heads, but that isn't what the words say.  I was replying to Joey120373's comment about our prototype heads.  We almost always do flow/chamber development in a prototype head before finalizing the design.  If we are lucky, we get it done with only one version of the prototype head.  Not always, though.

[e philpott]

I would look into using the High Riser rocker pad since it's higher up for a higher roof compared to the TP rocker pad  , that's the one thing HR's had over all the other pushrod FE's

[Katz427]

Mahle is doing 3D printed pistons for Porsche turbo. Video on Mahle site.

[GerryP]

Mahle is doing 3D printed pistons for Porsche turbo. Video on Mahle site.

I don't know that I'd trust a piston made of toner. 

[Ghoughton]

Have you considered raising the port and extending the face of the head like Kasse did with the SR71?
Those seem exceptional for a CJ style head.

[Chrisss31]

I breezed through a lot of this so forgive me if it's already been suggested...  Would it be possible to machine the pushrod tube as part of the port as opposed to placing a tube in after?  There would be a lot of benefits doing it that way.

[jbamber]

Have you considered raising the port and extending the face of the head like Kasse did with the SR71?
Those seem exceptional for a CJ style head.

We will consider this tactic; we've used it before, too.  The feasibility of using this tactic on the FE, however, is affected by the fact the upper valve cover rail is part of the intake manifold.  Since we want to allow the use of stock valve covers, moving the upper valve cover rail up, requires raising the lower rail, too.  The exhaust rockers may not be very happy about that idea.  These re-designs are almost always an exercise in optimizing the compromises, so we will have to work through all of these choices.

Would it be possible to machine the pushrod tube as part of the port as opposed to placing a tube in after?  There would be a lot of benefits doing it that way.

Compatibility with existing intake manifolds is one of our design criteria - but that doesn't mean an unmodified tunnel port manifold will provide optimum performance.  It only means it will fit and function.  I believe your question applies to the intake manifolds we will produce.  If so, the best manufacturing technique will heavily depend on the characteristics of the optimized intake manifold runner design.

[SSdynosaur]

The window of tolerance for moving the valve cover rails or altering the angle of the valve cover may be much smaller than first appearances. Keep in mind that your target public will include a high percentage of unit-body design installs who's purchase will be influenced by mandatory relocation of master cylinders to accommodate interference with valve cover rail modifications.

[jbamber]

The window of tolerance for moving the valve cover rails or altering the angle of the valve cover may be much smaller than first appearances. Keep in mind that your target public will include a high percentage of unit-body design installs who's purchase will be influenced by mandatory relocation of master cylinders to accommodate interference with valve cover rail modifications.

Excellent point.  I added "stock valve cover location" to my constraints for the project.

[PLemoine]

I would definitely be interested in a few sets that would use the factory intakes and valve covers. I currently have just about all of the Ford intakes and an Algon fuel injection manifold.

[dozz302]

I think most (majority) would like to see these heads work on a completely stock 427 myself included.
Once you start changing the factory specifications to "custom" > have to mill this, drill that, buy this part, different valve cover angle > to run them interest will drop off.
Great someone is looking in making a set though!

[FERoadster]

I'll chime in about FE VC's because that's what I specialize in in my collection.
Not interested in TP heads since my cars are/will be street driven.
To me as long as a stock VC can be mounted on a Head/intake combo with some sort of a stepped adapter (even thought it may be further away from the block). I wouldn't mind the minor difference in appearance.
Just my point of view (POV).
Richard >>> FERoadster