The Cal-look Lounge
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 03, 2023, 15:13:58 pm

Login with username, password and session length
Thank you for your support!
Search:     Advanced search
349890 Posts in 28359 Topics by 6724 Members
Latest Member: veedubracing
* Home This Year's European Top 20 lists All Time European Top 20 lists Search Login Register
+  The Cal-look Lounge
|-+  Cal-look/High Performance
| |-+  Pure racing
| | |-+  2789cc valvesize - 48x38 or 50x40
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2789cc valvesize - 48x38 or 50x40  (Read 18070 times)
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« on: February 01, 2014, 19:59:16 pm »

2789cc valvesize - should i go with 48x38 or larger 50x40 for TP billet heads?    All valvetrain stuff will be light, JPM std dual springs, JPM ti retainers, alu pushrods, Udo's light lifters.  I intend to use stainless T4 lenght valves with 3 groove locks. I have not yet decided the cam, some of the two cams, either 280 or 282@0,050" from JPM.

I am aiming  to 250~260hp. 

I do have 48x117mm manleys allready, but Scat only sells at web 50mm 117mm valves. Are the any good, or equal as std Manley valves for VW?

 
Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
Torben Alstrup
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 716


« Reply #1 on: February 02, 2014, 13:13:54 pm »

If the intake port can support it, definitely 50 x 40. AFAICT the Scat Valves are fine. I have not seen any problems with them worse or better than Manleys.

Another option is DelWest or even Ferrara, but they are most likely not exactly cheap.

T
Logged
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #2 on: February 02, 2014, 13:56:53 pm »

2789cc... with JPM's 282 camshaft and 1.4:1 + 51.5 IDA or 48 IDA's with 44mm. JPM Raptor Venturies...  
YOU SHOULD BE FULLY COVERED with 48x38 valves up to 250-260 hp. !!!  Grin Cool
 
With 50x40 you either block the air in front of the valve, or you make the indtake canal larger, And loses velocity.
 ie. you lose top hp, without getting torque... OR're losing torque without getting more top hp.....  Sad

Regards, Magic  Smiley

Correction ... You will lose torque but of course not lose peak hp.!  Wink
« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 14:08:02 pm by magic » Logged
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2014, 14:00:22 pm »

ups ... different ways of looking at it ..... sorry Torben! ;-)

Hilsen Mads
Logged
Torben Alstrup
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 716


« Reply #4 on: February 02, 2014, 14:20:27 pm »

No problem. Its a free country. Cheesy

You are sort of correct. That´s why I wrote what I did. But with almost 700 cc per plug he has the dispacement to exploit the larger intake surface.

T
Logged
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #5 on: February 02, 2014, 14:37:48 pm »

Hmm ... Torben why did't you stop me ....  Roll Eyes Grin  Of course you're right!

Ok, what I was trying to say was .... you can easily achieve your goal with 48x38.
It is of course easier with 50x40 and you will end up with more HP.
But with the 48x38 you will be able to reach the 250-260HP. AND get a stronger bottom to mid-range (much better I'll say)

Mads ibsgaard




« Last Edit: February 02, 2014, 14:51:33 pm by magic » Logged
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #6 on: February 02, 2014, 23:12:45 pm »

I am running fuel injection with 2 x drla style 48mm throttlebodies, no IDA:s  Cheesy

Heads do have somewhat large intake ports,  chamber side port opening is 42mm and manifold side port opening is 46,5x36mm.

Valves would look like this (chamber is littlebit different)







Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2014, 16:58:54 pm »

That is a (hot) dedicated street engine if I ever saw one!!...  Smiley
 So you are hunting for street-ability!??
 And then your 46.5 X36mm would be pretty close to ok with your 48mm. throttlebodies right?!

Logged
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #8 on: February 03, 2014, 17:14:10 pm »

Yes, dual 48mm throttlebodies and i am getting loong velocitystacks.  I saw here one 2276cc engine making 265hp with MS250 46x38 heads  Shocked  Smiley
Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
BeetleBug
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2836


Snabba grabben...


« Reply #9 on: February 03, 2014, 17:24:01 pm »

I saw here one 2276cc engine making 265hp with MS250 46x38 heads  Shocked  Smiley

And

- A 40mm intake valve making 194hp on a 1600ccm engine
- A 40mm intake valve making 206hp on a 1776 ccm engine

What can the intake channel support? There is no need for stuffing a huge valve in there if not the rest of the channel is able to match.

-BB-
Logged

10.41 - 100ci - 1641ccm - 400hp
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #10 on: February 03, 2014, 17:54:23 pm »

Yes, dual 48mm throttlebodies and i am getting loong velocitystacks.  I saw here one 2276cc engine making 265hp with MS250 46x38 heads  Shocked  Smiley

Cooool  Cool Cool Cool
Logged
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #11 on: February 03, 2014, 17:56:26 pm »

"Looong velocity stacks" = torque...
So it IS a street engine you are building there!...       48x38!!! Grin
Logged
magic
Full Member
***
Posts: 107



« Reply #12 on: February 03, 2014, 18:27:17 pm »

My 84x102 type 1, with JPM 230 heads, 48x38, 11,2:1, 282 * Raptor cam, 48 IDA and JPM 44mm. Raptor Venturies.....  and CRAPPY jetting Shocked (waay too rich)  Tongue Tongue
gave 247hk. and 328nm.  It could easily have made ​​over 250hp. with proper jetting!!
But my IDA: s are sold now, and I'm also switching to throttlebodies, on my hunt for more street ability....... And fun......

Good luck with your 2,8L !!!!!   Grin Grin Grin

Magic






« Last Edit: February 04, 2014, 17:20:47 pm by magic » Logged
GetBackOnTrack
Full Member
***
Posts: 170



« Reply #13 on: February 03, 2014, 18:54:39 pm »

I have both 50mm and 48mm stainless intake valves "for type 4, 117 mm lenght" in stock.

Im Building a 2805cc type 4 myself, using 50/40 valves and shooting for 275-280 HP.

Just a Little comparible info  Wink

Regards, Jakob.
Logged

You need quality machine work done???
Check: gbot.dk
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #14 on: February 03, 2014, 20:38:57 pm »

Yes, it will be somewhat a street engine, pushing the germanlook 1300 to the limits on track/strip and cruising at highway and beach roads (yes we have beach roads here in Finland)  Grin

Johannes recommended me that 282@ cam few years ago, i will be using 1.4 pauter rockers, so there is about 15mm valvelift.

Wonder what is the usual 48mm valveseat ID?  42-43mm?

I'v been looking CB performance stacks:

http://www.cbperformance.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=6379

Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
morkrieger
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #15 on: February 05, 2014, 22:57:50 pm »

Hi,

If you have a proper CAD model, you are not far off from running a proper CFD simulation on it to get some flow numbers and toy around with valve size and channel volume.
If your input is right, the differences with the flow bench are almost non-existent, at least on the stuff i tested so far. I used Solidworks Flow Simulation for this set against a 'analog' SF-300 Superflow.

A dynamic simulation requires programs in the likes of ANSIS FLUENT which are near impossible to understand (especially for internal combustion engines) without proper training.
Though a virtual static, constant depression test, can give you insight regarding velocities and volumes in ways you can't see on a flow bench, like slicing the head and probing velocities on several points at once.
Logged
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #16 on: February 06, 2014, 13:54:09 pm »

I have done few airspeed test with 129 000 Pa pressure at intake port and 100 000 pressure at cylinder (Solidworks  FloXpress program doesnt allow suction?) .  This is the head what i have designing for Finnish cnc manufacturer:





Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
morkrieger
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #17 on: February 06, 2014, 19:06:42 pm »

Flow Xpress is very limited, do you have access to the full module 'Flow simulation'?

If yes, then setup an internal flow sim, and mimic a flow bench (including a test cylinder). Insert the 'lids' to seal the ends and setup the boundary conditions.
Now on the 'goals' insert a surface goal on the bottom surface (the lid) of the cylinder (like the flowbench orifice), for 'total volume', this will plot in your simulation then.

Make sure the mesh 'size' selected matches your model, too large of a cell makes the calculation unreliable.

I can help you out here, but perhaps not over this forum ? Send me a PM if needed.
Logged
Udo
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2075



« Reply #18 on: February 06, 2014, 19:46:57 pm »

I am running fuel injection with 2 x drla style 48mm throttlebodies, no IDA:s  Cheesy

Heads do have somewhat large intake ports,  chamber side port opening is 42mm and manifold side port opening is 46,5x36mm.

Valves would look like this (chamber is littlebit different)








For that port size-do not know how they look inside - 48 are big enough

Udo
Logged

-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #19 on: February 07, 2014, 08:45:12 am »

This is cad cutaway from Thorstens head, port is from intake flange 46,5x36mm  to chamber 42mm.  I dont have solidworks flow simulation.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/139/newchannel.jpg
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 08:49:17 am by -Alex- » Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3209


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 07, 2014, 09:29:44 am »

The sharp corner in the roof of the canal just before the valve seat, where all the lines separate from the wall, is that intentional?
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #21 on: February 07, 2014, 09:38:05 am »

I am not sure what you mean?  Sharp corners at port are not intentional, some if not most 3D cad programs make like that port. I'll explain later today with pics how ports are made at 3D cad.
Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
Jon
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 3209


12,3@174km/t at Gardermoen 2008


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 07, 2014, 10:14:41 am »

If the flow simulation is decent, the top half of the canal looks ineffective (red arrows)
The flows follows the shape much better in the bottom (blue arrow)

[ Attachment: You are not allowed to view attachments ]
Logged

Grumpy old men have signatures like this.
morkrieger
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #23 on: February 07, 2014, 17:13:12 pm »

Hi,

Alex, look at options-> add-ins are you sure there is no flow simulation there? (it needs to be 'enabled' seperately).

The FloXpress stuff is very basic and the flow paths (or worms-nest as i call it) doesnt show much except pretty pictures, what you need is data with set goals and a decent Mesh Smiley

Send me a PM if you want more info or ask here.
Logged
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #24 on: February 07, 2014, 21:52:08 pm »

Yes, its not intended, i dont know if the intake port near at valve doesnt work at best or just the simple FloXpress doesnt give best results. You can choose tubes and balls to show flow, and with balls  Cheesy  it shows continous moving flow.


I found the Flow Motion, i thought first that it is extra (pricey) package, but i got it on.  It definetly looks more complex than floXpress  Cheesy











« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 22:21:22 pm by -Alex- » Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
wph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94



« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2014, 22:22:06 pm »

I am not sure what you mean?  Sharp corners at port are not intentional, some if not most 3D cad programs make like that port. I'll explain later today with pics how ports are made at 3D cad.

This is why many of the CNC heads are scanned from a hand ported prototype ports.
Cylinder head professionals design and modify the ports to a casting and sell their work to the CNC company.
Top end aftermarket castings flow very well out of the box (in general) if they are designed and manufactured by
technology available today (3D CAD, scanning, flow simulation and rapid prototyping)
 
Logged
wph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 94



« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2014, 22:29:54 pm »



What you see between the red arrows is commonly called short side radius, SSR.
You want the fattest curve / largest radius to this point unless you're running the latest
four valve head designs. You need a flow straightening section just before the seat and
a combustion chamber wall supporting the ”flow cone” out of the seat area.

In the picture flow is separating from the port wall at a point of left red arrow creating a wake &
turbulence behind it to the most sensitive place in the intake port, 1” before and after the seat throat which
should be the smallest cross sectional area in a port at least in a 2- valve (racing) engine.

This area is so sensitive that a cut in a port 6 mm wide and 0.5mm deep can gain you 10-20 hp worth
of flow in a 4- cylinder head if the port's cross sectional area for the intended rpm & displacement is adequate.
Sometimes it is better NOT to blend the cut to the rest of the port.
Just a food for thought.....

Yes, its not intended, i dont know if the intake port near at valve doesnt work at best or just the simple FloXpress doesnt give best results. You can choose tubes and balls to show flow, and with balls  Cheesy  it shows continous moving flow.





I found the Flow Motion, i thought first that it is extra (pricey) package, but i got it on.  It definetly looks more complex than floXpress  Cheesy














"You can choose tubes and balls to show flow, and with balls   Cheesy   it shows continous moving flow."

If you are preferring to adding objects in front of SSR in a simulation, that's a common flowbench practice for "seeing"
what the flow "wants" or needs  Lips Sealed



« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 23:03:07 pm by wph » Logged
morkrieger
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2014, 23:31:07 pm »

Hi guys,

with Flow Simulation, the full module, you can now easily measure the real volume flow, or even preferred, the mass-flow through the port, at a given valve lift.
You can 'iterate' through several configurations/port designs and look for trends, classic flowbench tools like the straw, or even pitot tube are pretty much replaced by hard numbers.
I must press on the fact that the Mesh (or 3D 'air cells') needs to be sound for reliable results.

You will also be amazed how much difference a good/bad manifold makes, it's a bit more than 'just a few potential HP'.

I'm pretty confident Alex can get this going, the on-board help in SW is pretty good. Good luck Smiley  And also, listen to the pro's out there that do the real job (flow/porting), a computer is a very 'dumb' tool.


(and as added bonus, you could dive into thermal simulations as well, even get close to the amount of heat the head is able to dissipate, or improve your fan-shroud etc..etc...it's so much fun Smiley )
« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 23:38:31 pm by morkrieger » Logged
-Alex-
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 681



« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2014, 23:44:10 pm »

I know that short side radius must be big as possible, but basic modeling at SW doesnt allow it, at least not with easy work.  Thats why i am thinking to leave the chamber side port size a bit smaller on heads which will go into production (so you can hand finish after seats are installed) on Tommis Billet:

http://cal-look.no/lounge/index.php/topic,21032.0.html


Port is done with Cut Loft  with two sections (sketches) only, at the chamber and intake flange + ofcourse center line.  I'v tried to ad sections and it works - but its hard to find correct shape of section and find correct place for it - this would be also way to get venturi into port if needed?






« Last Edit: February 07, 2014, 23:58:45 pm by -Alex- » Logged

While Cal-Look stands still, looking backwards for inspiration, German Look keeps pushing boundaries further forward Cheesy
morkrieger
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 70


« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2014, 23:58:55 pm »

Not wanting to sound like 'the wise guy' here but....
I strongly suggest looking into the 'lofted cut' (with the start-end constraints function) and 'surfacing' stuff on solidworks, it's daunting at first but it allows you to 'clay' the port, and also have smooth convergent/divergent geometry in the port.
CNC is the easy part, a well suited/well tested model is 90% of the work. Though leaving some room for hand porting sounds interesting as well....so many options Smiley .

attached is a quick-n-dirty example of what i mean, this is done with working the start-end constraints of a loft.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2014, 00:15:15 am by morkrieger » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!