matt_lamb_160

Radius rod bushes I would go spherical bearing! they make a huge improvement in handling an feel. You really have to try a really hard bush in the radius rods, makes no difference to comfort at all

That gasket is weird.
I’d peg it, it would give me the shits trying to change plugs- which you will need to do often with this engine.

Im still trying to figure out how he's gonna dig a hole with an esculator..........



Sent from my GT-S7583T using Tapatalk

That's harsh and Vizard leaves a lot un-answered, he also relies on smarter people that came before him and often forgets to acknowledge them. But I also get what you mean with the backyard made up physics, myths and magic men.
There are tonnes of very smart, very handy self taught engine builders out there that could have saved a lot of time and money by reading.

That's harsh and Vizard leaves a lot un-answered, he also relies on smarter people that came before him and often forgets to acknowledge them. But I also get what you mean with the backyard made up physics, myths and magic men.
There are tonnes of very smart, very handy self taught engine builders out there that could have saved a lot of time and money by reading.

Bang for buck the BA/BF & FG motors make more hp. That's a given. We race against several up here. Most get 275rwhp with just cams and tune on $300 wrecker motors.  
You have to love crossflow engines to want to make power from them as they are very expensive to build to that same power level. They are after all a very old engine.  
Funny thing is in our form of Motorsport the crossy's still dominate the ba/bf. why? because of their torque and the weight penalty that comes with the Barra. 
At the end of the day the buyer will make the choice. I've got several customer crossflow engine builds on the go at the moment so the interest in them is still there. I make a point of informing all my customers at the very outset that it's not going to be a cheap exercise.
 

Nah not really, there's probably more dignified ways to go. It was more making the point that the way certain people are carrying on (not you btw) kinda makes me uninspired about mucking around with crossflows. 

So you can tie it to your feet and drown yourself? I hear they make great anchors...

yep its looking hardcore east west.

this is a CQ model cast throttle body and plate,entry level performance carb from here they just go up in price big time,good looking carby has plenty of features including 2 nice stickers

I never doubted your combustion chamber comments if that is why my name is in brackets? I just like to see what has been done and works.
Haha... "little known fact". This guy must have just learnt it. I am sure the guy is very smart, but that is a bit rich. The air doesn't stop at the port so that is obvious. But he is correct about the pressure thing which is why Vizard recommends the variable pressure flow bench.
The influence of exhaust to inlet port has been understood for decades, but perhaps not the finer details which like everything fluid dynamics related may never fully be. The so called rules of inlet to exhaust ratio only apply if you are using the maximum valve space allowable and are still based on some very old experiments from Charles Taylor (despite some claiming it as their own). So the post is right there too. Making an exhaust valve smaller  (unless there is something horrible wrong) is not going to make you faster and if your exhaust is flowing at least 60% of your inlet your not giving that much up. But, if it is flowing 90% you are not either unless you have hammered the port in the process. I think that influence of exhaust tunning is often overstated and Sly's post also suggests a hint of that.
The very last point made in Sly's post is the main point, why do we test at a constant arbitrary pressure drop?  Because it's easy and gives us a good starting point to work with. If you were to design a new head using CFD, you wouldn't do it, but at least it gives you some information to work with.
It is a good post with some good points, but he is still talking in black art.

I never doubted your combustion chamber comments if that is why my name is in brackets? I just like to see what has been done and works.
Haha... "little known fact". This guy must have just learnt it. I am sure the guy is very smart, but that is a bit rich. The air doesn't stop at the port so that is obvious. But he is correct about the pressure thing which is why Vizard recommends the variable pressure flow bench.
The influence of exhaust to inlet port has been understood for decades, but perhaps not the finer details which like everything fluid dynamics related may never fully be. The so called rules of inlet to exhaust ratio only apply if you are using the maximum valve space allowable and are still based on some very old experiments from Charles Taylor (despite some claiming it as their own). So the post is right there too. Making an exhaust valve smaller  (unless there is something horrible wrong) is not going to make you faster and if your exhaust is flowing at least 60% of your inlet your not giving that much up. But, if it is flowing 90% you are not either unless you have hammered the port in the process. I think that influence of exhaust tunning is often overstated and Sly's post also suggests a hint of that.
The very last point made in Sly's post is the main point, why do we test at a constant arbitrary pressure drop?  Because it's easy and gives us a good starting point to work with. If you were to design a new head using CFD, you wouldn't do it, but at least it gives you some information to work with.
It is a good post with some good points, but he is still talking in black art.

I never doubted your combustion chamber comments if that is why my name is in brackets? I just like to see what has been done and works.
Haha... "little known fact". This guy must have just learnt it. I am sure the guy is very smart, but that is a bit rich. The air doesn't stop at the port so that is obvious. But he is correct about the pressure thing which is why Vizard recommends the variable pressure flow bench.
The influence of exhaust to inlet port has been understood for decades, but perhaps not the finer details which like everything fluid dynamics related may never fully be. The so called rules of inlet to exhaust ratio only apply if you are using the maximum valve space allowable and are still based on some very old experiments from Charles Taylor (despite some claiming it as their own). So the post is right there too. Making an exhaust valve smaller  (unless there is something horrible wrong) is not going to make you faster and if your exhaust is flowing at least 60% of your inlet your not giving that much up. But, if it is flowing 90% you are not either unless you have hammered the port in the process. I think that influence of exhaust tunning is often overstated and Sly's post also suggests a hint of that.
The very last point made in Sly's post is the main point, why do we test at a constant arbitrary pressure drop?  Because it's easy and gives us a good starting point to work with. If you were to design a new head using CFD, you wouldn't do it, but at least it gives you some information to work with.
It is a good post with some good points, but he is still talking in black art.

Well there you go. Yep, it's a lot easier to have one ecu to tune and add corrections for temp and atmospheric conditions etc.
Spool imports do H beam 200 rod and forged piston packages with either Ross or CP pistons, $1800 and $2200 respectively.
With only moderate power goals and low revs a set of prepped stock 250 rods with ARPs and a set of hypereutectics like Hypatec should be fine.

Microtech still do a fuel only ecu, it's listed at about $895, I thought it would be easier to just get the fuel and ignition system to control the lot.

Also need to start planning an engine rebuild as well.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Skip smoothing paste and jump to extrusion honing...

You still need to port em...Some people use epoxies to seal up,remake or build up areas looking for gains. Simply putting goo in there and smoothing it will not improve anything.
Most leave a textured finish to the cyl heads and manifolds to help attomisation.     
 

Flow seperation is a killer, has the effect of making your ports smaller.

Deff 2" open space makes hp. Seen it so many times. 
Carby faces primaries to shock tower secondaries to engine and staggered jetting for consistency in response.

the chinese alloy crossflow head casting factory is watching this thread with glee,they must have it nearly all done,should be on sale soon,like everything else.

https://imgur.com/a/i0yV4

If you can find a worthwhile picture I would like to see it here. If you haven't got one, you haven't got one.

Clearly, I meant pictures indicating the material added and where not to take it away from. Perhaps I should have said "pictures showing...", but you knew what I meant.

Just to clear up what broken wheel has said. If  that theory (a big if) he has applied is correct, 2.14 sq inches is a 1.65" (43mm) diameter port not 2".
Sly, do you have pictures of the material that needs to be built back up opposite the inlet valve that you can add to this thread?

Clearly, I meant pictures indicating the material added and where not to take it away from. Perhaps I should have said "pictures showing...", but you knew what I meant.