[mgarblik]

I have also flowed stock Ram Air V heads on my flow bench. The head I flowed did not go 320 CFM, but not far off either. I think the best port was 309 CFM. This head was absolutely stock, factory valve job and valves. But what what really amazed me about the V head and what gave me so much confidence for our billet V project was the behavior of the head on the bench. The Ram Air V head never backs up on the flow bench. You give it more lift and it just flows more air. Never gets noisy and turbulent, never stalls, right up to the point the retainer hits the valve guide. I have never had any stock head on the bench that behaved like this. If the factory would have utilized this fact and used a big cam and associated valve train, it would have been a game changer. But that stuff greatly increases cost, which is always a factor in factory parts.

[slowbird]

People talk a lot about air flow through heads but fuel is in there also and fuel is heavier and doesn't want to change direction as easy as air will. That needs to be thought about. Also large quantities liquid fuel does burn very well at all so that needs to be a concern.

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by slowbird

People talk a lot about air flow through heads but fuel is in there also and fuel is heavier and doesn't want to change direction as easy as air will. That needs to be thought about. Also large quantities liquid fuel does burn very well at all so that needs to be a concern.

That is true and the tube would have an interesting effect on the heavier fuel droplets. I am not sure, but I would bet Don Johnson spent some time on a wet flow bench developing the unique shape of his intake port and divider. My mentor passed away before I was able to get a stock Ram Air V or our billet version on his wet bench. It was a planned date, but his unexpected illness and eventual death ended the project before they spent any time on the wet bench. Would have been very interesting.

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

any time on the wet bench. Would have been very interesting.

Originally Posted by Darin Morgan

The only tunnel port head I had anything to do with was that piece of crap Ford came out with because Junior Johnson though it would be a good idea. All I did was port it and flow it and tell them it would never work because the wet flow was total junk. That was 1992 I think. The only Pontiac heads I have ever done where the 455SD heads on Don Kennedy's Super Stocker in 1989.

The push rod through the port idea is just bad bad bad all the way around. It does not work. I told them it was junk then and I will tell them the same thing now. They flow like gain busters so everyone thinks they are cool but they are actually junk.

The stock heads could never be made large enough on the Pontiac and the tunnel port head accomplished that. The wet flow in the standard Pontiac heads of the day was already poor so consequently the engine never showed a difference in that regard but the power went up because of the much needed volume increase. They didn't have the volume flow rate and air speeds of today's competition heads.

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic...&sid=0a1051f0c

[tom s]

WOW,almost 12 years ago!Tom

[tom s]

I was trying to get a head wet floed way back then.Tom

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

That is true and the tube would have an interesting effect on the heavier fuel droplets. I am not sure, but I would bet Don Johnson spent some time on a wet flow bench developing the unique shape of his intake port and divider. My mentor passed away before I was able to get a stock Ram Air V or our billet version on his wet bench. It was a planned date, but his unexpected illness and eventual death ended the project before they spent any time on the wet bench. Would have been very interesting.

Those results wouldve been interesting! I think Don's approach has potential, i'd love to have set some day!

[dci]

Thank you to the guy's that support my heads. I have flowed several sets of factory RA5 heads through the years and found the same results. In stock form they flow from 306 to 320 CFM at 28" depending on the valve job. Although unlike Mike's experience I found the heads with just a tube to be very turbulent. The ones that I flowed with the air foil were stable though. Maybe the head Mike flowed had the air foil I don't know. My heads as Mike stated were designed with computer aided flow analysis. Then we made prototypes with FDM plastic parts so we could flow them on the flow bench to confirm what the computer told us. This is why it took so long to get the heads to market. I wasn't going to just make a casting on assumptions. My heads have tremendous velocity in as cast form. Actually they are to fast for most high HP applications. As cast on the flow bench my heads make this super high pitched whistle at higher lifts. It's so loud it hurts your ears. I haven't had the opportunity yet to try these on a smaller cube engine, but I do believe the TQ would right up there with any D-port head.

[mgarblik]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

http://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic...&sid=0a1051f0c

It's so interesting that you found that quote from Darin Morgan. I say that because it was Darin and Joe Mondello who were going to wet flow our head that we designed!. When I first showed it to Darin, he rolled his eyes and gave me the typical, "why are you wasting your time with this crap" kind of attitude. But I knew he was one of best in the business and I respect him. I think after he spent a little time looking at what we had done and the reasons for doing them, he realized we weren't complete idiots. Anyway, Joe Mondello passed away suddenly, and Darin Morgan went back to Rehr Morrison, leaving Ohio, 20 minutes from my house. And the heads never saw the wet bench. Life is like that sometimes. BTW, Joe Mondello's Superflow 1020 bench with all the wet flow adapters is for sale. PM me if interested. Located in TN.

[JSPONT]

Originally Posted by mgarblik

It's so interesting that you found that quote from Darin Morgan. I say that because it was Darin and Joe Mondello who were going to wet flow our head that we designed!. When I first showed it to Darin, he rolled his eyes and gave me the typical, "why are you wasting your time with this crap" kind of attitude. But I knew he was one of best in the business and I respect him. I think after he spent a little time looking at what we had done and the reasons for doing them, he realized we weren't complete idiots. Anyway, Joe Mondello passed away suddenly, and Darin Morgan went back to Rehr Morrison, leaving Ohio, 20 minutes from my house. And the heads never saw the wet bench. Life is like that sometimes. BTW, Joe Mondello's Superflow 1020 bench with all the wet flow adapters is for sale. PM me if interested. Located in TN.

When Joe was alive, and visited New York he stayed at my friends house on Long Island. My friend went to his head porting school, and they became good friends. Joe liked the wineries out on the east end here. He was a real down to earth good guy. Sad he is gone.

[mgarblik]

I don't want to derail this thread but I will say Joe Mondello was an amazing person. I learned so much from him. A master chef, and wine expert as you mentioned. He shared his vast knowledge with anyone willing to listen and learn. An artist with a grinder. RIP.

[GTO-relic]

Originally Posted by Darin Morgan
The only tunnel port head I had anything to do with was that piece of crap Ford came out with because Junior Johnson though it would be a good idea. All I did was port it and flow it and tell them it would never work because the wet flow was total junk. That was 1992 I think. The only Pontiac heads I have ever done where the 455SD heads on Don Kennedy's Super Stocker in 1989.
The push rod through the port idea is just bad bad bad all the way around. It does not work. I told them it was junk then and I will tell them the same thing now. They flow like gain busters so everyone thinks they are cool but they are actually junk.
The stock heads could never be made large enough on the Pontiac and the tunnel port head accomplished that. The wet flow in the standard Pontiac heads of the day was already poor so consequently the engine never showed a difference in that regard but the power went up because of the much needed volume increase. They didn't have the volume flow rate and air speeds of today's competition heads.

old post....please allow me to comment
I've seen this attitude amongst the top echelons of professional racing. the problem is, they think the type of racing they're involved in, is the only one on the planet. correct me if I'm wrong, Morgan is primarily involved with drag racing.
the tunnel port design has been around since the 1960's on the Ford 427 FE side oiler racing engine. it went head to head against the vaunted 426 Hemi in NASCAR, and beat the hemi. 427 tunnel port powered Fords won both the 1966 and 1967 Daytona 500. with the pushrod guide in the ports. against the best Hemi engines of the time. explain that.
Mario Andretti won 1967, and Cale Yarborough won 1968. With tunnel port 427 engines, with pushrods through intake ports. no airfoils.
furthermore, ALL Ford FE engines have the pushrods in the intake ports. even the high riser, lower riser, medium riser. because the pushrods are cast into the intake manifold on that engine design. the engine doesn't know or care what you have in the intake ports. as long as enough air and fuel get into the cylinder.
that is the same engine that AJ Foyt and Dan Gurney dominated the 1967 LeMans 24 hour race with, and defeated all the Ferraris with. a 427 Ford.
428 Ford FE engines dominated a few upper classes of SuperStock racing, in the Mustang. those also have pushrods through the intake ports.
every single modern 4 valve engine, has a divider in the middle of the intake ports, splitting the flow to the 2 separate intake valves.
what's Darin Morgan have to say about that ? he's compartmentalized into one type of racing, and is oblivious to what the rest of the world is doing,
and also to automotive and racing history. he's amongst the best at his class of racing...but that's not ALL racing.
the cool factor is the ORIGINAL Ram Air V cylinder heads on your own car. they only made around 200 pairs of heads at Pontiac.
it takes a lot of work, money, expertise, patience to just find those original heads, and put together a running engine with them, and the supporting parts.
the aftermarket RA V heads, are a convenient alternative that just any consumer can buy much more easily, because they are actually available from vendors.
all the original RA V parts are privately owned, and jealously hoarded. the owner may not sell them to you, just because he didn't like the tone of your voice,
or he got up on the wrong side of the bed that day. so it's an entire different experience finding, buying, building an original.
the Pontiac V8 was so severely under-ported to begin with, the RA V head could not help but improve it, regardless of its design quirks.
having said that, the Ram Air IV heads will outflow the Ram Air V heads up to .500" lift in stock form.
at .500" lift the Ram Air V starts to pull away, by 20cfm.
the Ram Air IV 614 head will flat line at .400" lift and flow 250cfm with a good valve job, and stay at 250cfm all the way to .600" lift.
The Ram Air V head will flow 270cfm at .500" lift, and continue to increase up to 320cfm at .800" lift.
The RA 5 exhaust port will flow 202cfm at .800" lift. It was a racing head designed in the 1960's for use with high compression, high lift cams, high rpm.
considering Ford's achievements with the design, how bad can it be. sure, it's not CUTTING EDGE 2022 Pro Stock level.
that is .1% of the entire motorsports industry. what about the other 99.9%
most people aren't into Pro Stock, and don't want to be, for a good reason. considering what's happening to NHRA lately,
who'd want to be ? they're selling off their own tracks and collapsing before our eyes.
at this point we are building NOSTALGIA MOTORS. a new Tesla electric race car would whip most gas engined cars.
the V8 piston engine is not exactly cutting edge technology anymore. let's admit that.

[GTO-relic]

ps- I saw Joe Mondello's name mentioned.
FWIW, that's who did all of Big Daddy Garlits' TF cylinder heads.
Mondello was a class act. I liked his porting advice.
"you're going to do 2 things. make the ports wider, and taller."
genius is simplicity.
any idiot can complicate something.
What did Don Johnston do to the RA V heads when he redesigned them ?
He raised the intake and exhaust ports. He gets it.

[GTO-relic]

this put many a 426 Hemi, on the trailer, in NASCAR, for years...
how bad can it be ?
you can't argue with success.

the problem with the internal combustion engine is this,
we get sidetracked debating over the best way to move gas in/out of the cylinder,
and ignite it, and push the piston down, and open/close the valves with optimum timing,
when all that really matters, is spinning the crank.
if you could take a Pontiac bottom end, eliminate the top end completely,
and just spin the crank magnetically, you don't need all that top end nonsense anymore.
it's literally going to hell to light a match.
the object is spin the crank. not move, and burn gas.
yet 90 percent of the focus is on the top end.
1000 years from now, people are going to look at V8's in museums,
and say, can you believe they actually drove this POS around every day ?

[slowbird]

Fyi the only Ford 427 FE engine with the pushrods in the ports is the tunnel port, no other FE engine has pushrods in ports. No the high medium and low raise ports don't have pushrods in the ports

[scott70]

I could care less if a tesla could do 0 -100. mph in 2 seconds. There's nothing like a healthy v8 motor and cruising around, occasionally romp on it and take it to the track now and then and maybe rip off some 12 seconds passes.

[25stevem]

I am shocked at some of GTO relic’s comments to put it mildly!
All the old heads with there poor chamber designs you posted about about that beat out other heads of the era only did so because they flowed a bit more air, but at more of the average needed port velocity for the cid and rpm they being spun up to.
All of these heads, and maybe even yes the Hemi where far from the wet flow improvements and added power per cfm that for instance has been achieved by all the wet flow testing that has gone into Darts rework of there heads that are now called there Platinum series.

How many aftermarket Pontiac heads have been designed with fuel management also in mind besides air flow and velocity, myself and maybe many others would be very interested to find out!

It also seems that some folks can’t grasp that whatever type fuel a internal combustion engine burns is only there to heat the air.
It’s the heated expanding air that drives the reciprocating assembly.

[Tom Vaught]

Be warned, Post #32 DOES have a bunch of errors concerning the Ford Cylinder heads of the 1960s.

Not sure where the "information" came from but it does not line up with historical information and actual parts for the Ford Engines.

Tom V.

[tom s]

I am still waiting for a set of aftermarket V heads that have backed up their dyno numbers N/A at a track with consistent runs!We know from actual history that factory V heads have run in the 8s decades ago N/A.The factory V heads were held back by induction.They only made a couple hands full of the 2-4 tunnels ram intakes so most ran custom fabbed 2-4 sheetmetal tunnel rams.FWIW,Tom

[Formulajones]

https://youtu.be/ixRRcrbvG-k

That one had just come off the dyno when dad was having his engine finished up and dyno'd. It was an impressive piece.