jump 88" to 98" thoughts /opinions input etc
#11
02-02-2011, 08:56 PM
Elite HDF Member
Yes, Twin 50mm t/body set-up from S&S, with seperate runners.
They actually don't flow big numbers, as they carry an OE intake port diameter of approx. 1.640",(not our choice, but client already had them) as to the design of the manifolds, but they do produce big torque down low.
The American Irom Magazine 98" build(should see that on news stands any day now) went off at 122 hp, and 114 ft/lbs, Wood 9B, with a HPI 51mm t/body,(perhaps it could have made use of a 55) 1.800" intake port diameter, and a Supertrapp 2/1.
Scott
They actually don't flow big numbers, as they carry an OE intake port diameter of approx. 1.640",(not our choice, but client already had them) as to the design of the manifolds, but they do produce big torque down low.
The American Irom Magazine 98" build(should see that on news stands any day now) went off at 122 hp, and 114 ft/lbs, Wood 9B, with a HPI 51mm t/body,(perhaps it could have made use of a 55) 1.800" intake port diameter, and a Supertrapp 2/1.
Scott
Which technically would increase the intake fill velocity ... right?
But, I have been under the impression that exhaust is where you need to have velocity ... which is why scavenging is a good thing ... to keep the outflow going at sustained levels ....
Would you have preferred the build had ported heads or aftermarket heads with 1.90" int valves and matched ports ... to create 'laminar' airflow in the intake (unconstricted) ...?
R/
'Chop
#16
03-26-2011, 01:01 AM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: sincity
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#17
03-29-2011, 03:10 PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: sincity
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#18
03-29-2011, 04:42 PM
Elite HDF Member
Yes, Twin 50mm t/body set-up from S&S, with seperate runners.
They actually don't flow big numbers, as they carry an OE intake port diameter of approx. 1.640", (not our choice, but client already had them) as to the design of the manifolds, but they do produce big torque down low.
The American Iron Magazine 98" build (should see that on news stands any day now) went off at 122 hp, and 114 ft/lbs, Wood 9B, with a HPI 51mm t/body, (perhaps it could have made use of a 55) 1.800" intake port diameter, and a Supertrapp 2/1.
Scott
They actually don't flow big numbers, as they carry an OE intake port diameter of approx. 1.640", (not our choice, but client already had them) as to the design of the manifolds, but they do produce big torque down low.
The American Iron Magazine 98" build (should see that on news stands any day now) went off at 122 hp, and 114 ft/lbs, Wood 9B, with a HPI 51mm t/body, (perhaps it could have made use of a 55) 1.800" intake port diameter, and a Supertrapp 2/1.
Scott
Scott - just thinking out loud ... 50mm = 1.9685" ... so the 1.640" port/int valves were the bottleneck ....
Which technically would increase the intake fill velocity ... right?
But, I have been under the impression that exhaust is where you need to have velocity ... which is why scavenging is a good thing ... to keep the outflow going at sustained levels ....
Would you have preferred the build had ported heads or aftermarket heads with 1.90" int valves and matched ports ... to create 'laminar' airflow in the intake (unconstricted) ...?
R/
'Chop
Which technically would increase the intake fill velocity ... right?
But, I have been under the impression that exhaust is where you need to have velocity ... which is why scavenging is a good thing ... to keep the outflow going at sustained levels ....
Would you have preferred the build had ported heads or aftermarket heads with 1.90" int valves and matched ports ... to create 'laminar' airflow in the intake (unconstricted) ...?
R/
'Chop
Is that correct ...? 1.640" port for the intake ...? On a stock 88" the intake valve itself is 1.800" (exhaust 1.575" ... or earlier sizes 1.850" / 1.615" respectively) ....
If that is the case, I had not realized the intake port was that restrictive in relation to the valve head diameter ....
