Pelican Parts Forums

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)
-   911 Engine Rebuilding Forum (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/)
-   -   Race engine port sizes (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/920430-race-engine-port-sizes.html)

drumbraker 07-03-2016 04:05 AM

Race engine port sizes
 
I have a rather generic question:
Recently I have run across a couple of sets of heads that have 42mm intakes and 40mm exhaust ports. They are twin plugged. This seems like a lot of size for engines in the 2.2-2.4 range? My guess is that would need lots of carb, and cam, and only produce in the high end?
I would love to hear, from the Pelican Experts.

tomkirkcis 07-03-2016 06:50 AM

Your guess is a pretty good one.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/911-engine-rebuilding-forum/519112-early-911-cylinder-head-cross-reference.html


Those ports are larger than the ports of a 3.2 Carrera head. Your ports are much larger than most hot 3.2 short stroke motor builds.

I can not imagine those heads ever being on a streetable motor in that displacement range.

chris_seven 07-03-2016 07:54 AM

What's the Year marked on the heads and do you know the valve sizes?

drumbraker 07-03-2016 08:34 AM

Race engine port size
 
heads 11-72. Valves 46 and 40.
talking strictly as a RACE engine. Zero Street.

Trackrash 07-03-2016 11:22 AM

Bruce Anderson's book has a list of all the motors and port sizes. You would have to be able to rev to 8K rpm to use those heads.

Walt Fricke 07-03-2016 01:29 PM

Porsche's 2.8 and 3.0 RSR motors had 43/43 ports, to go along with 49/41.5 valves, and peak HP was listed at 8,000 rpm. Since you shift above peak HP to get the most out of your torque curve, you are looking at maybe 8,500 or so at a guess - you'd need a torque curve and gear chart to calculate actual optimum upshift points. The two flavors of 2.5 race motors had 41mm ports and 8,000 peak HP listed.

So can be great for racing if you can invest in the lightened parts and other race bits to go along with that, and probably more frequent rebuild intervals.

However, in building a short stroke 2.8 race motor using 3.2 heads I was advised by a respected source to leave the ports alone at 41/41. I think that the balance between port size and port velocity can be a tricky thing, at least absent DFI.

MST0118 07-04-2016 02:09 PM

My understanding is that the theory of race porting has changed over the years since the days of the early rsr motors in favor of smaller ports that have more velocity.

Generally, valve size is a limitation so that ports that exceed 85% of the valve size is probably a waste anyways since it won't flow any better. For instance, probably the largest port that would flow with a 46 intake valve is probably 39.

NICE 69 S 07-07-2016 04:25 PM

According to Wayne's book, in 1971 there was a 911/70 (Factory race engine) with 86.7X70.4 (2.5L) with 46/40 valves and 41/41 ports and MFI. According to his chart, the largest ports up to that date.
Next up is a 1972 911/72 with 92X70.4 (2.8L), 49X41.5 valves and 43/43 ports and MFI. Factory RSR race engine.
Both of these engines violate the above 85% rule. (But I'll bet they were fun to drive).
Bob B

drumbraker 07-09-2016 04:54 AM

Race engine port sizes
 
thanks for all the response. Good confirmation of my thoughts.

racing97 07-09-2016 09:25 AM

Quote:

Generally, valve size is a limitation so that ports that exceed 85% of the valve size is probably a waste anyways since it won't flow any better. For instance, probably the largest port that would flow with a 46 intake valve is probably 39.
you are so right!

regards


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2025 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Pelican Parts Website


DTO Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.