Question on port matching

rumblefish360 said
I believe the part in bold very much.
I also think the same on no one will ever now or notice but only on low power builds.

I think the video you showed has a flaw in its science when comparing it to the intake/cylinder head. The fluid dynamics seen are moving slow. Even if the fluid in the video is moving at 100 mph. It’s slow compared to the intake charge. While I could easily see something of the sort developing at the off set mating surfaces, I am hard pressed to believe a small off set would cause this.
Speaking of which, what kind of offset are we speaking about. You haven’t answered that one yet. I find it critical to define this and a exact measurement or percentage of a port size would be acceptable. This should also be weighed against an known CID of an engine.

It was mentioned that David Vizard said the tow should be matched but also in some cases the smaller intake port window made more power. It must be a case of slightly better velocity.

The old MP books state the same as I was saying. If the ports are not matched, the intake should be smaller. A larger intake port than head port has the air and fuel crashing into the cylinder head causing issues and power losses.

Disclaimer, I ain’t that smart. But I’m smart enough to follow the smart guys. It’s even better when they have been there and done that.

Let’s see, MP engineers agree with me…
David Vizard also thinks this way….
Rat Bastard doesn’t….
Without trying to be a mean dickhead or belittling, I’ll follow the DC books and Mr. Vizard before an unknown fella from the internet. Claiming the exact opposite with (IMO) flawed fluid dynamic videos.

I am open to the idea I’m wrong. But I don’t think so. I’ll need some hard proof and not someone saying it’s so.

As a side note, IDGAF what the Chevy guys did and how well it worked. Just sayin….

@pittsburghracer I have two things for you, so, first up is, I hope you know this, where can one get a smoke machine to show the air flow down a intake and cylinder head. I’ve seen these on YouTube before. Any ideas?
:thankyou:

Secondly! Ceral first, milk second.
:thumbsup:

It’s not a flaw in the science. The speed of the fluid will only make the vortices worse. So what speed they used in the video really doesn’t matter. You get the idea of what’s happening.

David Vizard has never been wrong.
MP has never been wrong.

Surely I jest. You can believe what you want, but that won’t change the science of it. I suspect you’ve never had any time on a flow bench, and that your porting experience is limited. Otherwise you would be able to grasp this very easily.

Turbulence isn’t always bad, but vortices are always bad. In fact, I could post some Darin Morgan videos that show exactly what I’m talking about but I won’t bother. It shows the opposite of Vizard and the MP stuff so he must be wrong too.