• Welcome to The Truck Stop! We see you haven't REGISTERED yet.

    Your truck knowledge is missing!
    • Registration is FREE , all we need is your birthday and email. (We don't share ANY data with ANYONE)
    • We have tons of knowledge here for your diesel truck!
    • Post your own topics and reply to existing threads to help others out!
    • NO ADS! The site is fully functional and ad free!
    CLICK HERE TO REGISTER!

    Problems registering? Click here to contact us!

    Already registered, but need a PASSWORD RESET? CLICK HERE TO RESET YOUR PASSWORD!

Head flow info

sctrailrider said:
[QUOTE="FellowTraveler, post: 514552, member: 16413")

From lack of any real data on porting the inferior 6.5 IDI head IMHO it is hit or miss as far as good results go.
Click to expand...

Well can ya give us any idea what good results would be as far as numbers go?? Have you measured the runners any at all and maybe compared them to anything??

And lack of data is the reason for this endeavor, Myself & John do see their is a need for improvements, but we both also need to see real numbers, not just believe something someone said...

Would it make all this better if this motor hit big on a dyno, or if a vendor said it gave X amount of power but couldn't or wouldn't prove result's??

Head porting isn't a fix all... it's another mod that will add to the package..[/QUOTE]

Actually, I've read your go-around's on this topic other sites over the years and no one has numbers, I don't either, but have at it I never said you shouldn't do it just pointed out the issue of the pre-cup inhabiting valuable space where IMHO porting could help 6.5 heads and as for the exhaust manifolds it's the same no one has numbers. In my experience low rpm's will not yield the best results on a 2 valve IDI 6.5 diesel if it did it would have been done already.......that's all.

Ask yourself why no really good cams are available for the 6.5 td?

Have you even tried a 4" down pipe? In my as well as other individuals experience the 3" down pipe is an issue with big turbos no matter how much fuel is thrown at it.

Dyno results with an auto transmission are inaccurate, see why in my post in 6.5 performance.
 
I'm leaving the particular's to the machinist, we have discussed all this and I want a build that will last without lots of work down the road...

I do know a multi angle valve job will be done but just what all hasn't been determined just yet... shooting for both worlds, strong & reliable.

The guide ramps are removed so we already know flow will be increased but how much is yet to be determined...

This particular motor is a tow build and not a "max power & rpm" motor so some things won't make it into this build..
 
Yep FT, I will have 4" or more from the turbo back.

The precup will always be there, not changing the platform just attempting to improve it some..

The cam... well all regrinds to my knowledge except the p400 so I don't know the specs for it yet.. but they went with a new stick for some reason ....

All is good, looking for any & all input here...
 
snarl95 said:
Will you be back cutting the valves?
Also you might try cutting the stems like this
valves_9.jpg

good article here
http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/cam-valvetrain/ferrea-helps-explains-valve-flow-dynamics/
Click to expand...
We are dealing with extremely high boosted diesel cylinder pressures that are way beyond low compression gas boosted engines so there is the real possibility of bending valves w/cut stems. IMHO the IDI needs way more lift and that has not become reality in all the years of 6.2/6.5 efforts.

I believe quad valve heads would yield best results however the high cost of R&D and limited market would not have the return on investment numbers to make it profitable....
 
sctrailrider said:
Yep FT, I will have 4" or more from the turbo back.

The precup will always be there, not changing the platform just attempting to improve it some..

The cam... well all regrinds to my knowledge except the p400 so I don't know the specs for it yet.. but they went with a new stick for some reason ....

All is good, looking for any & all input here...
Click to expand...

Be assured, I'm not knocking your effort I've seen how deep you have gone cutting heads to see what awaits the porting it's bold and I commend you for it.

As bump sticks go I can only guess high lift was never in the plans because of the low rpm's the 6.2/6.5 IDI platform was designed for.

Bigger down pipe and even an expansion chamber just after down pipe will result in very noticeable gains and let's not forget the biggest CAC/IC you cab fit in that rig too.
 
OK, we have the second set of flow numbers on my heads. I had all holes flowed to check how the numbers looked from each hole. The heads will be sent back to me for a little more work but I wanted to see how close my work is and if I was headed in the right direction or not...

The heads will be flowed 2 more times before they are done, again with the heat stop coating in all runners, then again after the valve job & unshrouding work, then they will be finished. Still it will be a month or more until I'm done..

I posted the spread sheet with all the data so far for those that would like to see it..

So far, the intake has increased flow 20cfm, exhaust increased flow 27cfm.

The ratio between intake & exhaust flow has increased from 76% to 82%

For the charts below, the KEY is left side is CFM's... bottom is valve lift in inches...

This chart shows all exhaust runners ..
CPJ1-All Exhaust.jpg

This shows all the intake runners CPJ1-All Intakes.jpg

Stock vs ported intake
CPJ1 vs P400 Stock Intake.jpg

Stock vs the EGR exhaust runner. CPJ1 vs P400 Stock Exhaust.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Stock vs CPJ1.xlsx
    8.9 KB · Views: 5
  • Stock vs CPJ1 (1).pdf
    18.7 KB · Views: 7
sctrailrider said:
OK, we have the second set of flow numbers on my heads. I had all holes flowed to check how the numbers looked from each hole. The heads will be sent back to me for a little more work but I wanted to see how close my work is and if I was headed in the right direction or not...

The heads will be flowed 2 more times before they are done, again with the heat stop coating in all runners, then again after the valve job & unshrouding work, then they will be finished. Still it will be a month or more until I'm done..

I posted the spread sheet with all the data so far for those that would like to see it..

So far, the intake has increased flow 20cfm, exhaust increased flow 27cfm.

The ratio between intake & exhaust flow has increased from 76% to 82%

For the charts below, the KEY is left side is CFM's... bottom is valve lift in inches...

This chart shows all exhaust runners ..
View attachment 47014

This shows all the intake runners View attachment 47015

Stock vs ported intake
View attachment 47016

Stock vs the EGR exhaust runner. View attachment 47017
Click to expand...
EXCELLENT: Positive results for sure, how much time you guess you have in the porting so far?
 
Nice work and thank you for sharing with us. I can't wait see what affect the valve unshrouding has. I was tempted to try that on my heads, but I didn't want to drop the compression. I also reasoned that since the angle around the valves was about the same as the seat angle that it possibly wasn't really hurting flow. I will love to see actual testing results to see what the actual effect is. Once again, thank for investing in this and thank you for sharing your results so we can all benefit!
 
Ok, I just got on the computer so I could look at your graphs better. This is interesting stuff. It's interesting that for both the intake and the exhaust, the #4 was the highest flowing (especially on the exhaust) - did you do something different or is there something inherently different in the castings?

Also when I was looking at these on my phone it looked like there were negligible low-lift flow increases, which was making me think that maybe the valve shrouding is really holding back the flow, but now when I look at it on a monitor I see that the intake flow down low has increased but the exhaust hasn't really. So I am still curious what unshrouding will show. Perhaps the valve head size is too small? That's what's great about testing and getting actual numbers, when you take this further you will see conclusively what works and what doesn't. Thanks again for sharing!!
 
That's a nice ratio gain so far. I'm guessing your grinds are as aggressive intake as much as exhaust trying to maximize over all flow. Or are you leaving some in the intake in order to achieve a more balanced flow?

I went back to re-read...
Less restrictive flow is higher effiecency, period. Worth the investment economically? Hopefully! Always emotionally if your a true gearhead. Better to know than just "what if" or "wish I had".

Kudos to all you trailblazers!

I wonder about the intake manifold flow of center mount turbos (van manifolds). The center tie piece is the killer on gm6 along with the turbo(duh), so that part is garbage anyhow to fit a big boy turbo. If they really are a huge restriction, some of you hot rod guys needs to get to building, big flow= good. Pipe is cheap. Balance those lengths, let's see some magic!

Someone asked about iat & egt. The better a head flows will always improve both. Less time the atmosphere is in contact with heated metal the better. Then factor the percentage of atmosphere that will now flow threw without coming in contact for even less heat transfer. On top of that he is going to coat the runners, so now even less (a lot less!) heat transfer will occur. As in:

At the rate of flow going through the head, not a ton of heat can heat up the fresh air coming in through the head, but with the mods he is making I would say he will stop almost all the heat transfer into the air, at least in the head surface.

On the exhaust side, this will help with stopping the flaming heat that gets all heads hot. Most of the head heat is the seal of the combustion chamber itself, and heat transfer of the inconel precups so will it make it nice and cold all dream of-no. But like he said this is not a fix all. Nothing is. This will help a lot. The egt gauge would still read the same basic numbers it did before, Infact, if he only coated the exhaust runners it should show higher on the gauge. Not because the engine is seeing more abuse, but less. More heat leaving the area instead of getting absorbed.

All my opinion, which with $5, will get you a donut and cup of coffee.

Thanks for sharing as you go along, much enjoyed. At the same time getting upset at you because I told myself playing inside Diesel engines is not going to happen by me anymore, and you are not helping that cause. I might have to consider righting a fat check in the future to you & unique by what I am expecting to see here.
 
These gains are strong gains over the stock castings. Seeing this work that Chris is doing on his grinding is absolutely impressive!

His grinding and machining methods are consistent. There was one cylinder where an experiment was made on the grind to see if the grinding would help or hurt. This cylinder performed stronger (#4) than the rest. I wasn't told which hole before flowing. It showed itself! The other three holes were very close by themselves.

This is round 1 with the heads and it looks like there will be some future revisions. The target is to release an improved head based on stock style (AMG and perhaps Chinese) castings that delivers real measurable results that translate directly to improved engine efficiency. We want this to be safe and leave good margins of metal to prevent leaks that could potentially be caused by cavitation and casting porosity issue in the future. Towing Performance heads basically.
 
sctrailrider said:
We should have the next set of numbers this week, a head is on it's way to TX now, this will the 2nd test on the same head, nothing done but port work... then once it gets back to me it will be ceramic coated with heat stop in all the runners then sent back to TX.
Click to expand...

While we are messing with the heads . . . Are we sure we want to play with just the ports?

What are thoughts toward insulating the pre-cup chamber to reduce heat loss to the head / coolant? Spent a stint in the Tech Library some time ago and read what looked like articles by big-thinkers. Most of the commentary indicated that there was a lot of efficiency loss by not insulating the pre-cup chamber. So much loss that IIRC at least one article indicated that just insulating the pre-cup chamber could allow for power / efficiency levels comparable to a DI counterpart.


sctrailrider said:
. . . I will have 4" or more from the turbo back.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but would need to see results of this (and am sure that you will). Point is that in the Ferd community, only reason to go with a 5" is for sound as the power gains are too nominal to justify cost. So most stick with a 4" as the main restriction is at the turbine.
 
uniquediesel said:
This is round 1 with the heads and it looks like there will be some future revisions. The target is to release an improved head based on stock style (AMG and perhaps Chinese) castings that delivers real measurable results that translate directly to improved engine efficiency. We want this to be safe and leave good margins of metal to prevent leaks that could potentially be caused by cavitation and casting porosity issue in the future. Towing Performance heads basically.
Click to expand...

When you say real measurable results will to include runs on rollers, or?
 
JayTheCPA said:
While we are messing with the heads . . . Are we sure we want to play with just the ports?

What are thoughts toward insulating the pre-cup chamber to reduce heat loss to the head / coolant? Spent a stint in the Tech Library some time ago and read what looked like articles by big-thinkers. Most of the commentary indicated that there was a lot of efficiency loss by not insulating the pre-cup chamber. So much loss that IIRC at least one article indicated that just insulating the pre-cup chamber could allow for power / efficiency levels comparable to a DI counterpart.




Perhaps, but would need to see results of this (and am sure that you will). Point is that in the Ferd community, only reason to go with a 5" is for sound as the power gains are too nominal to justify cost. So most stick with a 4" as the main restriction is at the turbine.
Click to expand...

I suspect most loss of efficiency via un-insulated pre-chamber is with lower compression jugs less so with higher compression but I'm not the expert on this one. Ceramic coating is perhaps the best way to approach insulating the pre-chamber.

I see lots of thoughts on 6.5 heads and very little data however Heath claims his BIG HP 6.5 uses stock ports and bigger valves and pointing to the lbs of boosted air pumping through it at upper rpm's 5k rpm's is 1736 cfm boosted to 3.0 VE......
 
JayTheCPA said:
While we are messing with the heads . . . Are we sure we want to play with just the ports?

What are thoughts toward insulating the pre-cup chamber to reduce heat loss to the head / coolant? Spent a stint in the Tech Library some time ago and read what looked like articles by big-thinkers. Most of the commentary indicated that there was a lot of efficiency loss by not insulating the pre-cup chamber. So much loss that IIRC at least one article indicated that just insulating the pre-cup chamber could allow for power / efficiency levels comparable to a DI counter part.
Click to expand...

It's about time someone started thinking new tech around here... I am quite aware of the role ceramic's play, tested it for my self with the other build.. coatings can be worth lots more than the cost of it...

Jay you might remember my other motor had all the coatings inside and how much I bragged about the stuff..

The thermal coatings are worth their cost period ...
 
uniquediesel said:
These gains are strong gains over the stock castings. Seeing this work that Chris is doing on his grinding is absolutely impressive!

His grinding and machining methods are consistent. There was one cylinder where an experiment was made on the grind to see if the grinding would help or hurt. This cylinder performed stronger (#4) than the rest. I wasn't told which hole before flowing. It showed itself! The other three holes were very close by themselves.

This is round 1 with the heads and it looks like there will be some future revisions. The target is to release an improved head based on stock style (AMG and perhaps Chinese) castings that delivers real measurable results that translate directly to improved engine efficiency. We want this to be safe and leave good margins of metal to prevent leaks that could potentially be caused by cavitation and casting porosity issue in the future. Towing Performance heads basically.
Click to expand...
Good stuff! So will you guys be getting new castings made based on what you find that works or will you be selling pre-modified pre-existing castings?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top