Author
|
Message
|
mctim64
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 5 Years Ago
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 5.0K
|
charliemccraney (2/26/2011) Tim, What about the set that was made for Charlie but didn't fit?I bought a new kit but we will be using the flanges and some of the tubes from those, nothing goes to waste. I might add that they are a lot like Teds EMC headers so I would think performance would be close. The new ones will have some interesting bends to get around the steering box and even the pass. side will have to be close to the same to even things out.
God Bless. Tim http://yblockguy.com/ 350ci Y-Block FED "Elwood", 301ci Y-Block Unibody LSR "Jake", 312ci Y-Block '58 F-100, 338ci Y-Block powered Model A Tudor
tim@yblockguy.com Visalia, California Just west of the Sequoias
|
|
|
Oldmics
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 4 Years Ago
Posts: 710,
Visits: 78.1K
|
Scotty (2/26/2011)
G'Day Ted, And guys, I follow this site a lot , even though i rarely respond, (guess that's obvious), As with everyone, a thank you for your time and efforts, and if i may, I have a question that i've not seen, heard of, read or been able to have answered. (that's not to say it isn't out there) But why are the header flanges shaped as per port design/shape, when round pipe is used? (obviously) That is to say, why not just round flanges for round pipe? When as often as not, the pipe is somewhat "re-shaped" to fit the flange anyway. This of course is irrespective of engine make. I can only assume that there is a very good reason for it, and although i do have a theory or two of my own, i'm unable to see it/them as viable all the same. My main reasoning is along the lines of the effect on the airflow, transitioning from port to pipe. Thanks for your thoughts and congrats on the EMC effort, "Outstanding"! I welcome any and all responses. Scotty From the book entitled Scientific Design of Exhaust and Intake Systems-Philip H.Smith and John C.Morrison "It may be considered that the slightly increased area at this point is of benefit in reducing pressure,particularly as there is often a sharp bend in the cast manifold bolted thereto." Its due to the bends encountered being so close to the flange. I also remember reading something on exhaust by Bill Jenkens. It stated that since there is a high pressure charge being released thru the opening of the exhaust valve that there was turbulance in the flow.This resulted in possible contamination of the incoming charge due to the camshaft overlap sucking the spent charge back into the cylinder. Basically the spent charge would creep up the outer edges inside the pipe.By keeping the flange at a greater opening than the pipe diameter the spent charge has a more difficult time getting back thru the exhaust valve.The spent charge is blocked by the actual head material exposed by the flange opening. Oldmics
|
|
|
pegleg
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 2 Years Ago
Posts: 3.0K,
Visits: 8.7K
|
Along with Phillip Smith who did some incredible studies in the 50's and 60's, the There were a number of others. Oldsmobile (yeah I know, GM) did very extensive studies in the late 60's, so did Chrysler (remember the long rams on the 413's?) They usually came to the conclusion that the area on the INSIDE of a bend is wasted. Might as well close it off to keep the flow laminer as long as possible. The other issue being that the smaller cross section will keep flow velocities up at lower RPM, while not really affecting the higher RPM flow.
Frank/RebopBristol, In ( by Elkhart) 
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 204.6K
|
Scotty (2/26/2011) .......I have a question that i've not seen, heard of, read or been able to have answered. (that's not to say it isn't out there) But why are the header flanges shaped as per port design/shape, when round pipe is used? (obviously) That is to say, why not just round flanges for round pipe?[/b] When as often as not, the pipe is somewhat "re-shaped" to fit the flange anyway. This of course is irrespective of engine make. I can only assume that there is a very good reason for it, and although i do have a theory or two of my own, i'm unable to see it/them as viable all the same. My main reasoning is along the lines of the effect on the airflow, transitioning from port to pipe.Old Mics has pretty touched on many of the points regarding why the ports in the headers or the manifolds are shaped like they are. I’ll add that if the heads are ported to the common rectangular shape, then a round port at the header flange can be obstructing part of the exhaust flow into the header. A rectangular port at the header will allow for the same cross-sectional surface area as a round port but will be a much better fit to the port at the head. On the stock exhaust ports at the heads, most are small enough that a round header port at the flange will not present any kind of obstruction so round ports can be found on the flanges of some of the older Y-Block header offerings simply due to the ease of manufacturing them. As far as the use of round tubing for headers goes, that’s what is readily available. Square tubing actually looks to have a flow advantage but is difficult for the average shop to perform the necessary mandrel bends to keep that flow advantage to the forefront. Hence, 99.9% of the headers you see use round tubing. . The ported aluminum heads on the EMC project engine have a very rectangular or oblong exhaust port which fits up to a very similar shaped exhaust port on the headers. Flow restrictions at the header to head are thus minimized. General header design typically points to having an exhaust port at the header that’s slightly larger than the port at the head so that reversion pulses coming back up the header tube hits the head rather than going back into the cylinder. As the overlap cycle in a camshaft is increased, also is the propensity for some of the exhaust to be pulled back into the cylinder during that cycle. By maintaining a larger header port size than the port size at the exhaust exit at the head, some of the potential for dilution of the fresh intake charge going into the cylinder is minimized. . Here’s a link to a past thread showing some different exhaust porting techniques which in turn requires appropriate header ports or flanges to match. http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/Topic46226-3-2.aspx
Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 204.6K
|
yalincoln (2/25/2011) thanks ted. i love those graghs. what dia. is the outlet in each manifold. and what length pipes are you using. 56"?Wayne. Both the 1957 dual exhaust and Rams Horn manifolds have a 2” exhaust opening at the exits. For the graph curves that are displayed and for the ’57 manifolds, the exhaust pipes were 2” diameter and 80” long with the mufflers added to this; for the ‘no muffler test’ came with the pipes being 32” long which produced the best score for the no muffler test. For the Rams Horn manifolds, the pipes were 2” diameter leaving the exhaust manifolds, then enlarging to 2½” diameter and were 56” long.
Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
yalincoln
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Last Year
Posts: 378,
Visits: 4.8K
|
thanks ted. i'm wandering if the 57 dauls might not have done better with the 2.5 in pipes. just trying to check apples to apples, HA!HA!
lincoln/merc. y-blocks &mel's bucyrus, ohio.
|
|
|
idaho211
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: Last Week
Posts: 122,
Visits: 9.6K
|
Ted, I appreciate all of the work you did on the different exhaust manifolds. Great results!! A couple of questions on my 60 ford 4x4 which now has single crossover exhaust to stock muffler coming out midway down the truck: 1. Thinking of using ram horn or sanderson truck headers. Would you use 2 and 1/4 on ram horn and 2 and 1/2 pipes on Sanderson truck headers? 2. I need to have some type of noise suppression but would like to have minimal resistance to flow, would you recommend mufflers or something like a glass pack? 3. Also the exhaust comes out mid way down the truck. Would you continue with the route or go full length and exiting out the back? Do you recommend a certain length between manifold and muffler as well as tailpipe length? Appreciate feedback from all
|
|
|
aussiebill
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Last Active: 4 Years Ago
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 11.4K
|
The ported aluminum heads on the EMC project engine have a very rectangular or oblong exhaust port which fits up to a very similar shaped exhaust port on the headers. Flow restrictions at the header to head are thus minimized. General header design typically points to having an exhaust port at the header that’s slightly larger than the port at the head so that reversion pulses coming back up the header tube hits the head rather than going back into the cylinder. As the overlap cycle in a camshaft is increased, also is the propensity for some of the exhaust to be pulled back into the cylinder during that cycle. By maintaining a larger header port size than the port size at the exhaust exit at the head, some of the potential for dilution of the fresh intake charge going into the cylinder is minimized. Here’s a link to a past thread showing some different exhaust porting techniques which in turn requires appropriate header ports or flanges to match. http://forums.y-blocksforever.com/Topic46226-3-2.aspx
Ted, i chuckle and think back as a kid when there was no technology except seat of the pants street tuneing coupled with youthfull exuberence and often ported my exhaust ports to 1 1/2" dia , figuring the ex valve was that dia, it then matched up to pipes good, but if the truth be known by todays testing etc would have made little difference? At least it seemed better? ha,ha.
AussieBill YYYY Forever Y Block YYYY
Down Under, Australia
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 204.6K
|
yalincoln (2/28/2011) thanks ted. i'm wandering if the 57 duals might not have done better with the 2.5 in pipes. just trying to check apples to apples, HA!HA! Wayne. Although I only tested the ’57 dual exhaust manifolds with 2” sized pipes, some of the differences between pipe sizes in conjunction with a pipe sized chambered muffer can be applied from the Sanderson Thunderbird header test. There were eleven different exhaust configurations tested with the Sanderson TBird headers so there’s a lot of data available for those particular headers including mufflers with the various sized pipes. I’ll go out on a limb and say that the 2½” pipes on the ’57 exhaust manifolds will still see a significant performance improvement over 2” pipes even though the exhaust outlet at the manifolds is only 2”. I look at the 2” restriction being a built in merge collector. Maybe Frank can add to this as he has the 2½” pipes on his ’57.
idaho211 (2/28/2011)
Ted, A couple of questions on my 60 ford 4x4 which now has single crossover exhaust to stock muffler coming out midway down the truck: 1. Thinking of using ram horn or sanderson truck headers. Would you use 2 and 1/4 on ram horn and 2 and 1/2 pipes on Sanderson truck headers? 2. I need to have some type of noise suppression but would like to have minimal resistance to flow, would you recommend mufflers or something like a glass pack? 3. Also the exhaust comes out mid way down the truck. Would you continue with the route or go full length and exiting out the back? Do you recommend a certain length between manifold and muffler as well as tailpipe length? Appreciate feedback from all Don. The Rams Horn manifolds were only tested with what I’ll call 2½” diameter pipes. The pipe used for the test was necked up from 2” to 2½” at the manifold due to the manifold outlet size. As far as personal preference on mufflers, I prefer quiet and with that in mind, a chambered muffler. And so there's not a drone or roar under the vehicle when cruising, pipes to the back of the vehicle to move the noise as far back as possible.
For the Sanderson TBird header test, three different sized pipes were tested along with the appropriate sized muffers at the end of each pipe. The scoring for each size pipe along with its corresponding muffler is a follows: 1454 pts - 2” pipes with 2” inlet/outlet mufflers 1462 pts - 2¼“ pipes with 2¼“ inlet/outlet mufflers 1488 pts - 2½“ pipes with 2½“ inlet/outlet mufflers Here are the torque and horsepower graphs for the Sanderson T-Bird headers with mufflers and with the various sized pipes.
Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|
Ted
|
|
Group: Administrators
Last Active: Yesterday
Posts: 7.3K,
Visits: 204.6K
|
aussiebill (2/28/2011)
Ted, i chuckle and think back as a kid when there was no technology except seat of the pants street tuneing coupled with youthfull exuberence and often ported my exhaust ports to 1 1/2" dia , figuring the ex valve was that dia, it then matched up to pipes good, but if the truth be known by todays testing etc would have made little difference? At least it seemed better? ha,ha. Know what you mean. I did the same but by the same token, it was equal footing for all back then. In retrospect, that older stuff still ran good. Most of the testing back then took place in the car and if you were lucky, on a drag strip with timers.
Lorena, Texas (South of Waco)
|
|
|