SBM Port Molds
- Thread starter Earlie A
- Start date
-
I must have missed the truth. All I asked was proof that 52-55 degree seats were the way to go and you didn’t post up any. And now I know way. I’ve provided 9.30 time slips with common 45 degree seats. You haven’t. It seems to provide high flow number on W8, W9 stuff but from what I’ve seen kills the low lift numbers. Most of us are budget racers and need low lift flow numbers to make the horsepower our budget needs.
What did you use to take those port molds? Thank you.
Been enjoying the fireworks. I do have a few more thoughts, but I’ll have to post them later. Working on my daughter’s house today.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09M9XKPFW/?tag=fabo03-20
This is the silicone that I used. It’s enough for 7-8 molds at least. It is a pain to get out of the port. Takes about 10-15 minutes to work it out. I use a Jorgensen style clamp to push on the intake side while pulling by hand on the valve side. I think a lower density silicone would be easier to get out, but this one works.
I really like the molds. Helps me visualize the whole port better.
I have only used WD-40. Think mrc would be better?
It’s been so long since I bought any mold compound that I forgot the name of the company I went with. They offered a pump spray compound so I bought some. It worked ok but then again I was playing with bigger B1 ports.
What’s the head those are sitting on? That’s some good looking chambers.
Those are the B1 heads I did for my 572. They flow 420 and are capable of more but I wanted to get them on the engine. I took molds because I have another set of B1 heads and figured I could speed up the process on them.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Sadly, you are just repeating what you don’t know. I don’t need to prove anything. Just keep on doing what you do. What makes no sense is why all the butthurt?
Go prove they don’t make more power and that low lift means anything.
Seriously? He asks a question and you want to take it sideways?
How about answering the question?
Or is it you can’t?
Yep
Still pot stirring! Keep on stirring! Round and round it goes, just like a toilet bowl!
Why don’t you STFU and ether help or leave?
How about trying something new, like, not being a dick.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
LOL. Ok prick. I am helping. You and John won’t listen. So why bother?
If you are going to live and die by flow bench numbers you will NEVER figure it out.
Go learn that.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
So? Because you bracket race that is impressive? Again, live and die by the flow bench.
Take it to PM , you'll have a much better conversation. I assure you.
You know as well as I do. John's stuff runs very good.
LMAO, from one prick to another….
No, your being cryptic and insultive.
Incorrect on my behalf, it’s not why I won’t listen, it’s why won’t you listen.
Learned that long ago and you should have known that but then again, when your head swells up so much from being convinced, your ears close and your eyes become shut.
Pay attention!
Asserting an assumption as fact. You do this over and over which shift the goal posts, point of the issue, an obvious blurring of the lines and facts of what was said while twisting the conversation to suite your objective.
Don’t high school girls argue like this?
If you were actually serious about helping, you would have pontificated on the issue already, but yet, instead, you cryptically reply, and insult. Twisting words, and blurring the objective of the subject. You are so, not helping. Only a blind man or a complete idiot can’t see this.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Let’s see. I said stick a piece of string in the port. You can learn a ton from that.
And then it became about seat angle. Why should I explain something to you that you are incapable of understanding?
Let me say it this way so maybe you can grasp it.
If you are testing ports at 28 inches and that’s it, you aren’t learning anything. I test at 10, 28 and whatever the machine will pull for water column. What’s happening at overlap isn’t anywhere near 28 inches. Or even 100 inches. And what happens near and at max lift is maybe, maybe 10 inches of water column.
So when you test a seat at 28 inches, it may look bad. But at 40 inches (or more if you can get it) what looked bad now might look good.
Are you getting ANY of this? I can’t make it any more simple than that.
So a bogus test says that you lose flow (that all encompassing, die for anything to gain 5 CFM at .100 lift nonsense) at low lifts may not be actually true.
Again, if you live and die by the flow bench you will never figure it out.
Just like the 100% idiotic notion that a 30 degree seat, with whatever limit you put on lift (let’s say you decide you want to run .480 lift convention says that should be a 30 degree seat) is a proven power maker. It’s not. Not with any lift constraints.
That’s why I said (if you were paying attention) that lift does NOT matter when choosing a valve job.
Again, live by the flow bench, die by the flow bench. It will lie to you.
Summary: just because a valve job looks bad at a certain test pressure doesn’t mean that it is bad.
No one will argue (maybe they will hear of FABO because learning doesn’t matter here, orthodoxy does) that the seat is the single most important part of the port. And no one should argue that SHAPE matters more than anything.
So look at the shape of the flow cone around the valve comparing a 30 degree seat to a 50. The valve is the single biggest impediment to flow. Why are we not working to get the flow around the valve more efficiently regardless of what the flow bench may say?
Think on this. Or not. Some of you can’t learn. You’d rather argue that your way of doing things is all that.
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
So? Who cares? That has zero to do with porting or anything else.
Are you saying his stuff is so good there isn’t room for improvement? Because no one would believe that.
I put John in as one of the top porters in the country with the results he gets with any port he works. heads and intakes.
There is always room for improvement, it just depends on how far you want to go.
I think John is happy where he's at, otherwise he'd be working on the heads up 572 car.
And the pot stirs on!!!!
Go NBT! Stir that pot! Twist up words and meanings and assume some more and more and more. LMAO!
Pot stirring….. LMAO
Not I but for those that don’t know- YES DO SO!
Everyone should read that again
Terrific pot stirring!!!! Everyone is wrong but you!
LMFAO!!!!
Go NBT! Stir that pot! Twist up words and meanings and assume some more and more and more. LMAO!
Good advice
So you assume I don’t understand. But this you know I do and you said it for one purpose only…
Pot stirring….. LMAO
Not I but for those that don’t know- YES DO SO!
know this stuff, next! And moving along moving along….
Everyone should read that again
And so the suggestion is there is only one way to do it and everyone else is wrong.
So you assume again.
Terrific pot stirring!!!! Everyone is wrong but you!
LMFAO!!!!
I got the wife and cats out of the bunker now that things have settled down a bit.
Here's a few latest thoughts and questions about the TF head design. I've been spending a fair amount of time porting and testing one intake port on a Speedmaster SBM head. I have been able to get the head to consistently flow 280 cfm without going overly large on the cross sectional area or the port volume. I would call it a decent port at this point. The part I still have to figure out is the SSR. That was my real interest in the TF heads. I was most interested to see how TF handled the short side to get the flow up to 300 cfm. That is why I was surprised when I saw the bowl/guide area.
The TF does seem to have a slightly taller SSR apex height than the Edelbrock/SM head. This allows for a larger radius on the short side, which helps keep flow attached to the short side at higher velocities/higher lifts. So that is part of the TF improvement over the Edelbrock/SM.
On the SM head I have also been using a pitot tube to measure velocities around the perimeter of the intake valve from the combustion chamber side. This has given me some understanding of how the air exits the valve into the chamber. At higher lifts and high cfm, the air flow around the short side and the shrouded side of the valve starts to suffer. This is the area that TF seems to have targeted with the twisted port design downstream of the guide. As NBT described in an earlier post, the TF engineers have layered the air. The port section on the cylinder wall side of the guide is high arching then curves quickly to force air down into the area of the SSR and the shrouded section of the valve. The air passing on the cylinder center side of the guide is kept much lower and straighter. This high velocity air is shot over the valve and twisted around to the far side of the valve in a way that makes it collide with the natural swirl direction. I haven't have the head on the bench yet or tried the string in the port but I hope to get there over the next week or two.
Here's my confusion and questions. I can see how the dry flow on a flow bench can be improved with these changes. Wet flow with fuel is a different story. Fuel (especially the big drops) wants to travel in a straight line. How does the fuel react to all these twists and turns? Does a TF head perform any better than a max effort ported Edelbrock? Not much info out there that I could find. I have found some reference to a TF engine liking 30-32 degrees of timing. That would indicate a more efficient burn than the normal 36ish degree SBM engine.
Thoughts are welcome, but I really don't want to sleep in the bunker again tonight.
Here's a few latest thoughts and questions about the TF head design. I've been spending a fair amount of time porting and testing one intake port on a Speedmaster SBM head. I have been able to get the head to consistently flow 280 cfm without going overly large on the cross sectional area or the port volume. I would call it a decent port at this point. The part I still have to figure out is the SSR. That was my real interest in the TF heads. I was most interested to see how TF handled the short side to get the flow up to 300 cfm. That is why I was surprised when I saw the bowl/guide area.
The TF does seem to have a slightly taller SSR apex height than the Edelbrock/SM head. This allows for a larger radius on the short side, which helps keep flow attached to the short side at higher velocities/higher lifts. So that is part of the TF improvement over the Edelbrock/SM.
On the SM head I have also been using a pitot tube to measure velocities around the perimeter of the intake valve from the combustion chamber side. This has given me some understanding of how the air exits the valve into the chamber. At higher lifts and high cfm, the air flow around the short side and the shrouded side of the valve starts to suffer. This is the area that TF seems to have targeted with the twisted port design downstream of the guide. As NBT described in an earlier post, the TF engineers have layered the air. The port section on the cylinder wall side of the guide is high arching then curves quickly to force air down into the area of the SSR and the shrouded section of the valve. The air passing on the cylinder center side of the guide is kept much lower and straighter. This high velocity air is shot over the valve and twisted around to the far side of the valve in a way that makes it collide with the natural swirl direction. I haven't have the head on the bench yet or tried the string in the port but I hope to get there over the next week or two.
Here's my confusion and questions. I can see how the dry flow on a flow bench can be improved with these changes. Wet flow with fuel is a different story. Fuel (especially the big drops) wants to travel in a straight line. How does the fuel react to all these twists and turns? Does a TF head perform any better than a max effort ported Edelbrock? Not much info out there that I could find. I have found some reference to a TF engine liking 30-32 degrees of timing. That would indicate a more efficient burn than the normal 36ish degree SBM engine.
Thoughts are welcome, but I really don't want to sleep in the bunker again tonight.
-
