Author Topic: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads  (Read 21435 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

turbohunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2021, 08:33:18 AM »
Has there ever been any experimenting with push rod passage shapes?
Marc
'61 F100 292Y
'66 Mustang Injected 428
'66 Q code Country Squire wagon


GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2021, 08:54:30 AM »
Like wind tunnel?  Probably not that.  No doubt on a flow bench, but if you already know something from aerospace testing, then you apply it.  There are photos out there of builders using an airfoil-shaped tube instead of the round tube.  You do whatever it takes when you need just five more horsepower.

From reading the responses here, I think most would be better off with Jay's upcoming race head.

I was thinking a TP with standard port locations and being able to use currently available hardware.  A revised, high-velocity port with a modern combustion chamber would be great.  Relocated ports requiring custom intakes and exhaust, custom valvetrain and all that puts that head out of reach for me.  I'd love to be able to run a tunnel port, but I don't want to have to spend five figures to do it. 

Henrysnephew

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2021, 09:17:15 AM »
Has there ever been any experimenting with push rod passage shapes?

Quite a few T/ports got pushrod tube work.  The main goal at the time was more pushrod clearance for bigger cam grinds, but an oval shape was necessary so as not to further restrict flow.  Randy M

turbohunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2021, 09:32:11 AM »
I’m in the cool factor camp. If parts were available and didn’t cost to much I’d build one just because.
Marc
'61 F100 292Y
'66 Mustang Injected 428
'66 Q code Country Squire wagon


jbamber

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • www.BamberEngineering.com
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2021, 10:15:55 AM »
Tunnel port heads were actually on my list to build, after I get my cylinder head package finalized and in production.  If the Bambers are really going to do it, I can go on to other projects.  How serious are they, and do they have experience casting cylinder heads?  If not, trust me when I tell you there is a bit of a learning curve  ;D

We are doing the tunnel port project.  We are already working with a major cylinder head casting foundry who will be casting these heads, and we will fully leverage their expertise.  Combined with our own expertise, I don’t expect major set-backs.
John Bamber
Bamber Engineering
www.BamberEngineering.com
e-mail: john@bamberengineering.com

jbamber

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
    • www.BamberEngineering.com
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2021, 10:30:12 AM »
I think something like the Edelbrock ProPorts but with TP port spacing would be a good idea. I also think that there is a market for matching intake manifolds.

In addition to our best version, we will likely offer a TP capable version, set up for stock valves and rocker arms.  If there is enough demand, we will develop ports and chamber for it – otherwise it will be a “ProPort” sort of offering.  We plan to develop and provide intake manifolds after we have the cylinder heads in production.

Kaase also has some TP molds , not sure if he has much interest in doing anything but he has the molds

Once we have developed our design, we may contact him.  I’m reluctant, since last time I talked to him about a project (SOHC FE) a couple years ago, he convinced me it was a bad business decision, and I dropped it.  I have a soft spot for the FE’s, since they are the reason both me and my brother are in the racing business. I built a nasty (in the day) 428 for my ’70 half ton, then eventually moved the engine to a ’67 Cougar GT.  Between those vehicles, I embarrassed LS6’s and a couple L88s, and at least one hemi Cuda. Lots of great memories and stories (all street racing).

I have, for a long time, wished that someone would offer a “modern” TP head. Even a raised port version and manifold, so long as it still looked basically “stock” to the casual observer.

Idea being that this head/intake could be bolted to any FE and make great power and dominate the “cool” factor. That said, canted valves changes everything. Angled pushrod tubes?

My vote is yes please, just do it. While I would prefer a version that could use stock valve train and pistons, I can appreciate why, when going to all the effort of casting new heads, it would be hard, if not foolish, not to improve the valve train and valve angles.

For those of us not wanting to rev pst 6500 and run race gas all the time, the stock(ish) valve train is perfectly adequate....

We plan to orient the rockers so the existing pushrod tubes will be utilized – the constraint of utilizing the stock valve covers is a major limitation – the valve angles will be limited more than we would like.  Canting and angling not only provides the effects of raising the port, it also creates a situation where the valves unshroud as they open. Often, the valves can be bigger in a head with canted and angled valves than in a head with a straight valve arrangement.

This design would be FAR easier without all of the constraints, but……

Really a tunnel port head, without the pushrod tube, and raised up, would be nice. However that is what Jay has, and 400+ cfm. I just see a tunnel port as well, ok, nostalgic. I have a tunnel port, but think a raised straight in port, without a pushrod tube , is a better solution, especially for big power numbers.

While we would MUCH rather not have a pushrod tube in the port, we are committed to keeping the Nostalgia factor, and allowing the use of existing manifolds.  We have experience developing ports with obstacles (pushrods, head bolts).  We flow all of our ports with the intended manifold (or runner) attached, so we know what the flow to the engine really is, including obstacles.  I’ll be very surprised if we don’t have intake flow in the 400’s, with proportionally correct exhaust flow.
John Bamber
Bamber Engineering
www.BamberEngineering.com
e-mail: john@bamberengineering.com

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1489
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #21 on: January 20, 2021, 10:54:30 AM »
I bet there are not 100 people in the USA that would actually race a Tunnel Port if the heads were available.  They would go on a show car, or hobby car, or shelf, and become a conversation item.  Left for kids to dispose of.  After this generation of folks passes on, the FE hobby will fade away if your grandchildren are anything like mine.(20-30 years old)  They are not interested in Fairlanes, Thunderbirds, Shelbys, Mustangs unless it is a Coyote.  Just trying to bring some sanity to this conversation.  The FE aftermarket is saturated now in reality, and this forum is one of the things keeping it alive.  Without Jay's forum, the other FE forums have turned into a glorified "Craig's listing" with lots of misinformation.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

turbohunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2509
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #22 on: January 20, 2021, 11:13:06 AM »
I don’t know about that Mr. Craine. It will certainly be a tight market, but there are lots of kids out there that think our cars are pretty darn cool.
They’re are the same kids that understand our music. Take flatheads for instance. Young guns are driving that market.
Marc
'61 F100 292Y
'66 Mustang Injected 428
'66 Q code Country Squire wagon


Barry_R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1906
    • View Profile
    • Survival Motorsports
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2021, 11:17:41 AM »
I had a chance to examine a pair of tunnel port prototype castings that one of the GT40 guys was having cast several years ago.
The ones that were on site were too thin in a few places, and last I knew they were going to be revised a bit.
I do not know if the project ever came to fruition, or how many were cast if they did go to production.

GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #24 on: January 20, 2021, 11:31:38 AM »
I bet there are not 100 people in the USA that would actually race a Tunnel Port if the heads were available....

I don't think there's any argument against that.  The great unknown is the street user.  Are there more than 100 of those?  Probably.  Making parts for obsolete engines has to be risky.  Even the SBC will one day be as common as Studebaker R3 and no new parts will support users.

I would like to run a tunnel port just for the nostalgia and street cred;  "Yeah, it has tunnel port heads."  I imagine that's going to be the market.  But if it requires a huge investment to run it, then that's going to trim the market some.

1968galaxie

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 302
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #25 on: January 20, 2021, 12:11:50 PM »
There are several FE cylinder heads available now.
Edelbrock, Edelbrock Pro-port, BBM, and Trick Flow.
Edelbrock Pro-port heads have been used on 800+ HP applications (a very few up to 1000 hp)
TFS heads on a few 700 HP builds.
Ported TFS will support 750 perhaps 800 HP?
Also factory high risers, tunnel ports, medium riser, and factory 428CJ, Canadian CJ, and various 390 castings.

The issue for many is cost to build a 700+ HP FE.
Even at "only" 700 HP level the factory blocks are not going to survive long.
Aftermarket block - big $.
Even with aftermarket FE blocks - demand is too low to reduce pricing to 385 series race blocks.

I still love the FE - but the $$$$ to build anything reliable over 600 hp becomes prohibitive.
The heads aren't the issue here - the block is.

JMO







Henrysnephew

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #26 on: January 20, 2021, 12:22:35 PM »
I have to agree with Mr. Craine but only to a point ... in the late '50s - mid '60s you couldn't give flathead stuff away.  In the '60s - '70s it was the Y-block.  In the '80s it was the FE's turn.  They have ALL come back with well-deserved popularity but, in general, the market for ALL of the dinosaurs is going to soften as time goes on (not just Ford).  The next generation is going to "plug in" whether they want to or not.  JMO.  Randy M   

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1128
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #27 on: January 20, 2021, 12:54:48 PM »
I have to agree, regarding the block but, that is where the FE has a advantage, in it's basic, light weight design. Affordable, cross bolted, aluminum blocks, I think would help in extending the FE's longevity.

Regarding the TP heads, I don't think the push rod tube limits them, at all. You can get all the CSA you want with it and you can deal with the tube, in two ways.

1. A airfoil shaped tube, that can also be used to direct flow to advantage how it inters the bowl. A radius around the tube at entry and exit to mitigate turbulence, in those areas.

2. A thin wall behind the airfoil tube, separating the port but, enhancing the  flow into the bowl.

It wouldn't look exactly like a FE but, a 3rd option could be a 3 valve head, similar to the Gurney/Westlake. Done right that would be worth at least 50 ci and still have inline valves. Anyone want to round a 385 against that combo?

Another way to get rid of the tubes, would be a timing belt driven, inline, SOHC head, it would be a lot cheaper than the hemi headed "Cammer".
« Last Edit: January 20, 2021, 12:58:59 PM by frnkeore »
Frank

Thumperbird

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 275
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #28 on: January 20, 2021, 12:56:00 PM »
My opinion, for the most part the only reason there is an FE renaissance is because 50/60/70 year olds grew up around them, want a retro ride, and have money now.
As soon as the 50 year olds push through the phase which isn't too far off demand will drop like a rock, very few 40's and younger folks looking at this old stuff, a few yes but just look at the average car show, a bunch of geriatrics!

GerryP

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 561
    • View Profile
Re: Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads
« Reply #29 on: January 20, 2021, 01:23:27 PM »
...very few 40's and younger folks looking at this old stuff, a few yes but just look at the average car show, a bunch of geriatrics!

Just my opinion, but you have to look to the kit car market for some of that resurgence in FEs.  Yeah, there are a lot of LS and various other engines under the bonnet of those Cobras and GT40s, but there's only one way to do it right and that's with an FE.  And what would the baddest of the bad-assed Cobras be?  One powered by a cammer.  There are a lot of owners out there well under 50.  I think there are as many reasons as there are owners.  We should be grateful that there are so many people out there who make all this possible.