Different cylinder heads, rockers & bump sticks for use on the 6.5

[FellowTraveler]

Really Traveler ? You post an article from David Reher and think he is the first one to talk about porting ? You know nothing about how my heads were ported , who did them , sizing , etc and yet you can judge them ? Blanket statements will get you in trouble and you continue to stick your foot in your mouth . I posted my results because like a lot off people on here , I just like the 6.2 and tinkering with . Don't really care if you think you are the One and Only , your opinion is yours . Don't like what I post , don't read it . Some may read and learn , others may not .

"Blanket statements get me in trouble?" OK: So, tell us about your heads again who did them etc. then enlighten everyone why you think they should port their cylinder heads w/o knowing the starting point, without engine dyno testing as the porting progresses as the airflow increased and if your hp/tq #'s climbed or?

 

[EWC]

Already posted numbers here and on other sites . Find them . Never said everyone should have their's ported . I did it because I wanted to have them done as everyone covered up the flow problems/lack of flow by just running more boost which can make more problems . Same with the Crane cam .

Do you really think someone ports heads without knowing what the starting point is ? How would I know how much I gained without this info ? Please enlighten me .

 

[FellowTraveler]

OK, My bad I misinterpreted the following: The point of all this is porting . My porter did not care if it was a diesel head or gas , he was just working on airflow . You should too

Anyway, it is obvious increasing boost has it's pitfalls so a larger turbo compressor and turbine running at lower boost flowing more lbs of air at lower boost levels can reduce those pitfalls at the expense of spooling and while this may be considered a band aid my opinion is it is the biggest bang for the bucks. I prefer a big turbo & big cac/ic for increased air density.

As for starting point I'd look for documented hp/tq numbers un-ported then followed by final documented hp/tq numbers.

I did see some numbers you posted about flow increase after your cylinder heads were ported but I guess I missed your posting of before and after numbers of hp/tq. So what was your before & after hp/tq?

 

[EWC]

No before or after numbers . I do have a Banks but probably the only part I will be using is the exhaust manifold so I would be looking at numbers higher than that . I also agree on the bigger turbo but if you port and get lower boost numbers , what would be the reasoning ? Boost to me is restriction in flow . Ported the restriction should go down ie lower boost but you are flowing more air and when you add more fuel the power should go up . Same with the cam . This is a combination of parts and one addition could lead to more issues that need to be addressed to get the power levels that you want . Just bolting on parts without any thought can get you in a bad place very quickly . My heads flow more than Rider is posting and the next step is a manifold . Can't have heads flowing over 200 cfm , when the manifold is only going high 190's , and expect to get the full flow from the heads

 

[FellowTraveler]

OK, I look at the diesel as an air pump the higher the rpms the more cfm it can flow but it's VE is limited w/o blower, supercharger, turbo or any combinations thereof. These boost devices are torque multipliers minus the parasitic loss to drive them and is the only bolt on and tune way I know of to increase VE above whatever the N/A VE is.

I'm going with a real Holset HX Super 40 w 18CM2 to see how well a tune can be developed for it using the DS4 on the 6.5 using full 4" from turbine to tailpipe as the 3" downpipe I have now becomes a restriction at high rpms. After this if I'm not happy I'll be going to DB2 moose and compound turbos running low boost and big volumes of air CAC/IC of course.

Porting maybe extrusion porting but I'm leaning more towards the thermal barrier coatings especially inside the pre-combustion chamber.

 

[3500_6.5]

Aside from port matching, does it really matter how much air it flows? Unless you're goal is to run more air with less boost, it's really pointless. We don't really have an airflow issue. We have a fuel issue. Flowing ridiculous amounts of air does no good if the stock pump can only put out 80mm3 of fuel. Personally, even running the fuel I am with a modified mechanical pump, I'd rather save the time and just port match the runners, increase the lift on the actual restriction of a boosted engine (the valves) and put 30 pounds of boost to it... What am I really going to save by opening the ports up larger? A couple of psi lower at the top end and add some lag and smoke down low? Find me more fuel, then I'll worry about big flow numbers from my heads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Will L.]

Running more air with less boost is exactly what you want. Doesn't matter if your after more power or more mpg. Better air flow is, well, better. It's just how much labor is worth the gain you get.

Our wish for more mpg and power is just limited bad by the penny pinching that was engineered into them.

 

[3500_6.5]

We're talking minimal gains here though. You won't gain large mpg increases or drop huge amounts of boost by porting the heads and intake. And even that, if we're looking at every single aspect to get every last drop of mpg and power, you would end up having to pick your turbo setup AFTER you get the porting done and get your flow numbers. Too much porting with too small of a turbo would hurt as well as too large of a turbo with not enough porting. But as said, any changes I would imagine would be minimal. You would most likely be spending more time and money chasing nearly non existent mpg and power increases based on the level we're currently at with the 6.5 platform.

I would imagine that time would be better spent looking at opening the valves at high lift longer and lift them higher. I would guess that a well developed cam and higher lift rockers would benefit you far more than spending a significant amount of time porting the heads and intake. I'm not against porting a 6.5, I was at one point planning on doing it to my own engine. But in all honesty, I think it would be more time wasted than actual gains from it. And with anything other than pushing the 6.5 to the limits, I just don't see it being worth the time or money in worrying about anything more than a simple port matching at most.

But by all means, I would love for someone else to spend their time and money and prove me wrong. I won't mind being wrong in this instance, especially since it won't be my time or money[emoji4] I'd just rather crank my wastegate down and put a little more boost to it at this point though....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FellowTraveler]

IMO: Bigger turbocharger or compound turbos flow more cfm at lower boost levels and helped by running the diesel at higher rpm's. Compounds could be sized to eliminate lag.

Critical is air density so the bigger the CAC/IC the better.

 

[Husker6.5]

Port matching is an avenue of minimal to no gain for effort/money expended in both NA and boosted engines. Vic Edelbrock did extensive quantitative research on this in the late 50's/early 60's. Only if the mismatch is severe, like 0.10", does port matching have any statistical significance. As a personal side note, my father consulted with Vic quite a bit when doing the build on our sprint car's motor back in the mid 60's. Along with a custom grind one-off cam my dad had Iskedarian do, doing things like tuning the velocity stacks on the fuel injection and custom built tuned headers and a host of other modifications to the block, heads, fueling system and valvetrain took a stock '63 Vette 327ci 375HP fuelie engine from there to a dyno proven naturally aspirated 675HP/610 lb/ft that would spin 8,000 rpm.

Now, on a extreme high performance engine like that, yes, port matching, polishing, unshrouding the valves, relieving the valve guides, necking down the valve stems, etc, all have a cumulative effect on increasing horsepower and torque.

Now, IMHO, on our 6.5's we are better served by addressing turbo efficiency/CAC/exhaust system efficiency/fueling concerns - limited by the structural design constraints of the 6.5's block/head (partially alleviated by the Optimizer/P400 architecture/material upgrades) - as the best bang-for-the-buck in increasing the power/efficiency of our motors.

 

[Will L.]

HUSKER, not trying to argue, but I read a lot of negativity in your post- maybe taking it wrong? I agree a person has too watch $ close if you want to maximize ROI, especially in a diesel.

In the bang for your buck comparison through, It changes greatly on the individual. I have no time to spend on simple gasket matching, let alone a basic porting or double the time for proper posting. So to me, I would buy a new set of heads, ready to go. Yes one would have to question the value on, but it is more for the elite group of guys who will invest more into a vehicle just because it's their enjoyment.

Economic investment is minimal if DIY. Most guys already own an air compressor, and a die grinder. A Mac tools burr kit like CB4S is $150, $99 on sale. And they are life time warranty for going dull or breaking. They'll get used elsewhere in life to not attribute the entire cost to the project.

Now it's just learning from the pros here how much to safely take off at home and spend his free time for the next week. Will his be as good as the ones ran on a flow bench? No. But unless he goes full dummy (self sensor) on it, he won't hurt anything.

Even if the gains end up VERY minimal o the engine, his pride of accomplishment is worth thousands. Show me a guy that took the time to port his heads, and he built the rest of the engine to the best of his ability, let alone his pride of ownership.

Hitting amazing numbers from this engine- Come on, we all know better. But making something the best you can with what you can afford is always good IMO.

I ask everyone here to call me out if I ever shoot down someone willing to try, to experiment, or just enjoying spinning their wrenches for fun.

 

[Husker6.5]

I think you're taking/reading into it wrong. Nothing against a person wanting to DIY a port match or polishing/smoothing/blending a head, but at our performance levels those efforts provide minimal performance gains. We are much better off persuing performance enhancements via turbo/CAC/exhaust/fueling/programming modifications.

 

[Will L.]

Ok, yeah. At the upper levels I agree not a big improvement.

 

[EWC]

So Husker , you have ported heads and did not like the results ? This was on the 6.2/6.5 engines ?

 

[FellowTraveler]

So Husker , you have ported heads and did not like the results ? This was on the 6.2/6.5 engines ?

How about we don't go there again, we all know you have your heads ported by some mystery entity and like the results so enjoy those heads and allow individuals to voice their opinion's. However, if you have before and after engine pulls to go with the porting number increase post them up for others to see so they can make an informed decision as it relates too 'do/not do porting.'

 

[FellowTraveler]

Port matching is an avenue of minimal to no gain for effort/money expended in both NA and boosted engines. Vic Edelbrock did extensive quantitative research on this in the late 50's/early 60's. Only if the mismatch is severe, like 0.10", does port matching have any statistical significance. As a personal side note, my father consulted with Vic quite a bit when doing the build on our sprint car's motor back in the mid 60's. Along with a custom grind one-off cam my dad had Iskedarian do, doing things like tuning the velocity stacks on the fuel injection and custom built tuned headers and a host of other modifications to the block, heads, fueling system and valvetrain took a stock '63 Vette 327ci 375HP fuelie engine from there to a dyno proven naturally aspirated 675HP/610 lb/ft that would spin 8,000 rpm.

Now, on a extreme high performance engine like that, yes, port matching, polishing, unshrouding the valves, relieving the valve guides, necking down the valve stems, etc, all have a cumulative effect on increasing horsepower and torque.

Now, IMHO, on our 6.5's we are better served by addressing turbo efficiency/CAC/exhaust system efficiency/fueling concerns - limited by the structural design constraints of the 6.5's block/head (partially alleviated by the Optimizer/P400 architecture/material upgrades) - as the best bang-for-the-buck in increasing the power/efficiency of our motors.

General consensus is that polishing is not needed on dry intakes and until such time as someone can prove there are real gains from porting the 6.5 td cylinder heads w/engine dyno pulls before/during/after too go along with the porting efforts IMO it's all akin to beating a dead horse.

 

[FellowTraveler]

HUSKER, not trying to argue, but I read a lot of negativity in your post- maybe taking it wrong? I agree a person has too watch $ close if you want to maximize ROI, especially in a diesel.

In the bang for your buck comparison through, It changes greatly on the individual. I have no time to spend on simple gasket matching, let alone a basic porting or double the time for proper posting. So to me, I would buy a new set of heads, ready to go. Yes one would have to question the value on, but it is more for the elite group of guys who will invest more into a vehicle just because it's their enjoyment.

Economic investment is minimal if DIY. Most guys already own an air compressor, and a die grinder. A Mac tools burr kit like CB4S is $150, $99 on sale. And they are life time warranty for going dull or breaking. They'll get used elsewhere in life to not attribute the entire cost to the project.

Now it's just learning from the pros here how much to safely take off at home and spend his free time for the next week. Will his be as good as the ones ran on a flow bench? No. But unless he goes full dummy (self sensor) on it, he won't hurt anything.

Even if the gains end up VERY minimal o the engine, his pride of accomplishment is worth thousands. Show me a guy that took the time to port his heads, and he built the rest of the engine to the best of his ability, let alone his pride of ownership.

Hitting amazing numbers from this engine- Come on, we all know better. But making something the best you can with what you can afford is always good IMO.

I ask everyone here to call me out if I ever shoot down someone willing to try, to experiment, or just enjoying spinning their wrenches for fun.

My take on porting of cylinder heads is it's always a good idea when seeking power above what has already been achieved w/o porting (example: Heath's build). Porting w/o including "before and after" flow bench #'s, engine dyno #'s and/or track runs leaves you guessing and relying on that butt dyno which is not consistent.

CFM flow increases w/rpm and boost increases it even more which brings us to air density which can only be increased via properly sized CAC/IC or high pressure (1k psi) water or water meth combo injection.

W/O porting fueling the 6.2/6.5 td is the issue now with few options "the Merlin DS4 from Heath or the Bull Moose+ DB2 from Cognito."

 

[6.5L]

I know I am beating a dead horse here with as much as I've said this, but "your only as fast as your slowest member" kind of deal. I can't see cramming more air in being effective if the factory exhaust manifolds can't shed much air efficiently anyways. Half the heat is lost on the crossover, especially at highway speeds. I really did notice huge gains from swapping to a more efficient exhaust manifold. 10x better torque, better low end (<1800rpm), better top end (>2600rpm), and massive mid range power (1800-2600rpm). Before I had to drive it like a 2 stroke to make any power. Since the swap, even my friends say the low end torque is on par with a DI motor. These motors don't turn that high of an RPM. Not high enough to warrant a port job. We aren't spinning 6000rpm and our turbo's aren't creating enough airflow to warrant it either. Without more fuel, throwing more air at it in the form of a bigger turbo isn't going to do much IMO. I am feeling that 3500_6.5 is good with his theory. Heck, even with my setup, I am still seeing consistently 19-20mpg highway, and that's with 4.10's

 

[Will L.]

Is porting a low rpm engine of anykind going to have massive impact- no. But it's a collective that brings it all up.

300m H rods? Expensive and no big measurable difference added by themselves, usually 1% increase in acceleration of rpm. Once paired with a balanced crank/Pistons as rotating assembly it will move up to 10% over I beam chromes. Once I put them in that Perkins I built for Carroll, it brought up our range 500 rpm first dyno! Now new springs, valve timing, etc. followed. End result was nearly 13% increase in HP, 6% torque. Huge!

Rods are of coarse way different effects than porting, but the point is it all adds up in power and $. Most of the guys here do this engine on the cheap, and it's worth a couple hundo for the benefits over 200,000 miles, which I assume most here shoot for.

Spending $5k for a set of rods? Heck no!

I've done twinturbos on my 1500 after I helped on a crew that did twin turbos/twin pumps. Anyone who is really hitting a wall with fueling and is trying to push the envelope needs to get over programming and pony up for a set of db2s- but these items should be a different thread.

I think here it needs to be cost of time & $ invested and what gains do you get at different levels of builds. Anyone looking for a 1 thing fixes all will always be disappointed.

 

[FellowTraveler]

I know I am beating a dead horse here with as much as I've said this, but "your only as fast as your slowest member" kind of deal. I can't see cramming more air in being effective if the factory exhaust manifolds can't shed much air efficiently anyways. Half the heat is lost on the crossover, especially at highway speeds. I really did notice huge gains from swapping to a more efficient exhaust manifold. 10x better torque, better low end (<1800rpm), better top end (>2600rpm), and massive mid range power (1800-2600rpm). Before I had to drive it like a 2 stroke to make any power. Since the swap, even my friends say the low end torque is on par with a DI motor. These motors don't turn that high of an RPM. Not high enough to warrant a port job. We aren't spinning 6000rpm and our turbo's aren't creating enough airflow to warrant it either. Without more fuel, throwing more air at it in the form of a bigger turbo isn't going to do much IMO. I am feeling that 3500_6.5 is good with his theory. Heck, even with my setup, I am still seeing consistently 19-20mpg highway, and that's with 4.10's

Your input is good, I'll be measuring drive/back pressure as is then after my 4" downpipe I'll measure again to see how much difference there is.