Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Ported Stockers Revisited

  1. #21
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hazelwood, MO
    Posts
    6,566

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I haven't looked at individual cyl's, always Thought I was so close to an EQ length header swap that it wouldn't be worth it. lol

    It's important to keep the turbine housing scroll Close in mind while thinking this through. The expanding gasses will have to Compress again while they Squeeze through that restriction!

    It's prob harder for most to visualize because the #3 & 4 runners are so short. Imagine instead an eq length header with 2 runners 1.5" ID and 2 runners 1.68" ID going into a .63 A/R stage 1 turbine housing/ wheel.

    Which 2 cyl's are going to outflow the other 2?
    Right, so the 1.5" runners will not be able to move the same maximum cfm, but that's not the point. What you are wanting is the pressure that is seen at the exhaust valve head to be the same across all of the cylinders. Because the cross sectional area is smaller, the same amount of mass flowing through is will have to move faster, which equates to less pressure at the valve head (PV=nRT) because the mass isn't stacking up. The larger runners allow the mass to slow down and stack up, causing a higher net pressure and a slower flow. So yes, by mucking with the volumes of the runners you should be able to effectively produce similar pressures at the valve heads as an equal length tubular header that all the runners were the same cross sectional diameter.

    As for how the mass moves through the volute and turbine, honestly I really want to do more in depth research here, but the only reason that the exhaust would have to compress again in the housing is if the housing/wheel combo simply couldn't flow the amount of exhaust being passed through it (boost creep). There's a bunch of physics going on all at the same time. The turbine works off of pressure and temperature (to a smaller extent) differential. The volume of the volute does decrease, but it's done so that the decreasing volume of exhaust keeps the same pressure differential around the turbine wheel. I guess you could argue this is "compressing", but the actual pressure theoretically should be the same all the way around.

  2. #22
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper1 View Post
    Right, so the 1.5" runners will not be able to move the same maximum cfm, but that's not the point. What you are wanting is the pressure that is seen at the exhaust valve head to be the same across all of the cylinders. Because the cross sectional area is smaller, the same amount of mass flowing through is will have to move faster, which equates to less pressure at the valve head (PV=nRT) because the mass isn't stacking up. The larger runners allow the mass to slow down and stack up, causing a higher net pressure and a slower flow. So yes, by mucking with the volumes of the runners you should be able to effectively produce similar pressures at the valve heads as an equal length tubular header that all the runners were the same cross sectional diameter.

    As for how the mass moves through the volute and turbine, honestly I really want to do more in depth research here, but the only reason that the exhaust would have to compress again in the housing is if the housing/wheel combo simply couldn't flow the amount of exhaust being passed through it (boost creep). There's a bunch of physics going on all at the same time. The turbine works off of pressure and temperature (to a smaller extent) differential. The volume of the volute does decrease, but it's done so that the decreasing volume of exhaust keeps the same pressure differential around the turbine wheel. I guess you could argue this is "compressing", but the actual pressure theoretically should be the same all the way around.
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're in agreeance with Rob that opening 3 and 4 but leaving 1 and 2 alone will help balance out the flow?

  3. #23
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper1 View Post
    Right, so the 1.5" runners will not be able to move the same maximum cfm, but that's not the point. What you are wanting is the pressure that is seen at the exhaust valve head to be the same across all of the cylinders. Because the cross sectional area is smaller, the same amount of mass flowing through is will have to move faster, which equates to less pressure at the valve head (PV=nRT) because the mass isn't stacking up. The larger runners allow the mass to slow down and stack up, causing a higher net pressure and a slower flow. So yes, by mucking with the volumes of the runners you should be able to effectively produce similar pressures at the valve heads as an equal length tubular header that all the runners were the same cross sectional diameter.

    As for how the mass moves through the volute and turbine, honestly I really want to do more in depth research here, but the only reason that the exhaust would have to compress again in the housing is if the housing/wheel combo simply couldn't flow the amount of exhaust being passed through it (boost creep). There's a bunch of physics going on all at the same time. The turbine works off of pressure and temperature (to a smaller extent) differential. The volume of the volute does decrease, but it's done so that the decreasing volume of exhaust keeps the same pressure differential around the turbine wheel. I guess you could argue this is "compressing", but the actual pressure theoretically should be the same all the way around.
    I prob shouldn't say "compressing" as much as accelerating through the turbine scroll, but with a system under pressure moving at an ever increasing rate into an ever decreasing scroll, I have to believe there is some form of compressing going on along with everything else.

    Also very important to consider that the exhaust cross section needed to flow X will always be relative to the exhaust port size exiting the head. As many have observed, I Don't hog out the exhaust ports when porting one of these heads. Since my exhaust port exits are almost always going to be Smaller than the exhaust mani inlet, the chance of running out of cross sectional area to sufficiently flow Any amount of exhaust that is able to be produced by that size exhaust port become virtually Impossible..........

    Damn, Did I just say that the ported stocker is Infinite!???

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by cordes View Post
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're in agreeance with Rob that opening 3 and 4 but leaving 1 and 2 alone will help balance out the flow?
    Just for the record, I never said I leave 1 and 2 alone

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  4. #24
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I prob shouldn't say "compressing" as much as accelerating through the turbine scroll, but with a system under pressure moving at an ever increasing rate into an ever decreasing scroll, I have to believe there is some form of compressing going on along with everything else.

    Also very important to consider that the exhaust cross section needed to flow X will always be relative to the exhaust port size exiting the head. As many have observed, I Don't hog out the exhaust ports when porting one of these heads. Since my exhaust port exits are almost always going to be Smaller than the exhaust mani inlet, the chance of running out of cross sectional area to sufficiently flow Any amount of exhaust that is able to be produced by that size exhaust port become virtually Impossible..........

    Damn, Did I just say that the ported stocker is Infinite!???

    - - - Updated - - -



    Just for the record, I never said I leave 1 and 2 alone
    Could you speak to your process more? I guess when you said "clean" I took it as somewhat literal.

  5. #25
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by cordes View Post
    Could you speak to your process more? I guess when you said "clean" I took it as somewhat literal.
    By the time you have removed all of the rough casting and any casting flash + radiused the corners, then smoothed out, you end up removing a fair amount of material. So you Are increasing the cross sectional area whether you like it or not, just not nearly as much as the 3 & 4 where you are doing a crap load of porting and Heavy removal before you get down to the smoothing process.

    I know what the cross section of the #1 runner measures just after the turn, so I know what needs to happen on the flange inlet and around that turn in order to remove any restriction before it. By the time you've achieved what I described above, you are pretty much there.

    Has no one else cut open an exhaust mani and measured all of the steps/turns/ openings in it? That was one of the first things I did, Years ago, and still have those cut apart pieces for quick reference any time I need them.

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  6. #26
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Hazelwood, MO
    Posts
    6,566

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by cordes View Post
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're in agreeance with Rob that opening 3 and 4 but leaving 1 and 2 alone will help balance out the flow?
    Basically, yes. By changing the cross sectional area of each runner the velocity (and therefore the pressure) could be altered to "simulate" an equal length header. The pulse tuning probably won't work, but that's not the goal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    I prob shouldn't say "compressing" as much as accelerating through the turbine scroll, but with a system under pressure moving at an ever increasing rate into an ever decreasing scroll, I have to believe there is some form of compressing going on along with everything else.

    Also very important to consider that the exhaust cross section needed to flow X will always be relative to the exhaust port size exiting the head. As many have observed, I Don't hog out the exhaust ports when porting one of these heads. Since my exhaust port exits are almost always going to be Smaller than the exhaust mani inlet, the chance of running out of cross sectional area to sufficiently flow Any amount of exhaust that is able to be produced by that size exhaust port become virtually Impossible..........

    Damn, Did I just say that the ported stocker is Infinite!???

    - - - Updated - - -



    Just for the record, I never said I leave 1 and 2 alone
    I understand what you're getting at. I need to re-read about volutes, etc.

    If the exhaust port is always smaller than the manifold and the length of the runner isn't too long, yeah, the stocker *could* be "good enough" for every bit of power that the stock ports can support (meaning no welding, epoxy ,etc.). Of course, as you've said from the start, this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be gains from going with a well designed header, but unless the stocker just couldn't be modified any more, those gains will probably be small.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    By the time you have removed all of the rough casting and any casting flash + radiused the corners, then smoothed out, you end up removing a fair amount of material. So you Are increasing the cross sectional area whether you like it or not, just not nearly as much as the 3 & 4 where you are doing a crap load of porting and Heavy removal before you get down to the smoothing process.

    I know what the cross section of the #1 runner measures just after the turn, so I know what needs to happen on the flange inlet and around that turn in order to remove any restriction before it. By the time you've achieved what I described above, you are pretty much there.

    Has no one else cut open an exhaust mani and measured all of the steps/turns/ openings in it? That was one of the first things I did, Years ago, and still have those cut apart pieces for quick reference any time I need them.
    Back when the "twin turbo Shadow" was around (the one that had 2 Mitsu's mounted on the same manifold that was split and the swingvalves pointed at each other welded together), I remember the pictures if the manifold then. That's when *I* decided that the stock manifold was too much of a hassle to deal with for "good" performance.

  7. #27
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Thanks guys. This thread has been very enlightening. What's the thinnest you guys go on the castings without worrying about blowing through them when running the car?

  8. #28
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor Shadow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Aubigny, Manitoba, Canada
    Posts
    5,088

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Reaper1 View Post

    If the exhaust port is always smaller than the manifold and the length of the runner isn't too long, yeah, the stocker *could* be "good enough" for every bit of power that the stock ports can support (meaning no welding, epoxy ,etc.). Of course, as you've said from the start, this doesn't mean that there wouldn't be gains from going with a well designed header, but unless the stocker just couldn't be modified any more, those gains will probably be small.
    The gains from a properly designed Eq length header would be in Efficiency. The Efficiency of the exhaust moving Away from the port And, the Efficiency of the exhaust Pulse moving Through the turbine housing/wheel combo.

    How much More efficient do I believe the Charger would be with a header right now? With no other change other than tuning the cal to match AFR's with the header, the Charger would prob be making the same power it is now on 32psi vs 39. May be slightly less, may be slightly more, but that's the kind of change you're going to see, More power (more Efficient) on less boost with the same turbo configuration.

    Quote Originally Posted by cordes View Post
    Thanks guys. This thread has been very enlightening. What's the thinnest you guys go on the castings without worrying about blowing through them when running the car?
    I'm sure there are areas on the Charger exhaust mani that are .030", but I would usually stick to at least double that in all other applications.

    Also keep in mind that we are only talking about certain areas, not a whole runner that thin.

    Robert Mclellan
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wambNdfnu5M
    10.04 @ 143.28mph (144.82 highest mph)
    Worlds fastest 8v MTX Shelby Charger
    Manitoba's Fastest 4cyl!
    8 valve, No Nitrous!
    New clutch combo is the SH!T!

  9. #29
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadow View Post
    The gains from a properly designed Eq length header would be in Efficiency. The Efficiency of the exhaust moving Away from the port And, the Efficiency of the exhaust Pulse moving Through the turbine housing/wheel combo.

    How much More efficient do I believe the Charger would be with a header right now? With no other change other than tuning the cal to match AFR's with the header, the Charger would prob be making the same power it is now on 32psi vs 39. May be slightly less, may be slightly more, but that's the kind of change you're going to see, More power (more Efficient) on less boost with the same turbo configuration.



    I'm sure there are areas on the Charger exhaust mani that are .030", but I would usually stick to at least double that in all other applications.

    Also keep in mind that we are only talking about certain areas, not a whole runner that thin.
    Wow, that's a huge decrease in boost for the same power. Very interesting to think about.

    I appreciate the advice on the thickness. I've never researched what the minimum recommended is.

  10. #30
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Toronto Canada
    Posts
    1,772

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    I would suspect header tube length would have some impact on output to
    of maybe where the power is in the power band
    I have a set of extended big block headers .. great for bottom end , not so great for top end

    by extended length I mean about 20 inches at the collectors

  11. #31
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spokane
    Posts
    655

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    When I port a stocker I try to build a decompression area, like a plenum behind the #3 hole. Under pressure you aren't making 3 flow a ton better than 1. What you are doing is the same thing as making a path of least resistance for 1. If you work 1-2 and leave 3 alone you are creating a bottle neck. When you really work 3 you make a low velocity decompression area for 1-2 to fall into before the turbo. Then the volume area, not a separate port decompress into the turbine. Kind of like a step header to a collector if you will

  12. #32
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    I hope to have some feedback on this in a few weeks. Of course, I'm changing a bunch of stuff at once to make this experiment invalid, but I did attempt to spend a lot more time on 3 and 4 than 1 and 2. It was ported a lot more heavily than I had initially intended, but I'm a big fan of my die grinder and have been working away on stuff over the winter. I think I'll try a head soon. I'm surprised at how good I am with it. It's a lot like my days of grinding tires when patching flats.

    Thanks to all who've offered advice in this thread. It was a huge help.

  13. #33
    Supporting Member Turbo Mopar Contributor GLHS60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sherwood Park Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    1,640

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Good question but mine is has anyone actually gone too far and broken through while porting??

    My pal Brian ported one for me very nicely but broke through in one spot.

    Looking for input on welding up the small hole.

    Any experienced input is appreciated!!

    Thanks
    Randy

    Quote Originally Posted by cordes View Post
    Thanks guys. This thread has been very enlightening. What's the thinnest you guys go on the castings without worrying about blowing through them when running the car?


    There is no logical reason to call an Engine a motor.

    Randy Hicks
    86 GLHS60
    86 GLHS 373 : SOLD, but never forgotten
    89 Turbo Minivan
    83 Turbo Rampage : SOLD
    Edmonton,Alberta,Canada

  14. #34
    Hybrid booster
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    Jacksonville
    Posts
    411

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    i would look at having brass or bronze or copper brazzed on it first..

    you would need to go lean and start melting other things before you melted it.
    or road race it under boost for an hour...

  15. #35
    boostaholic
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,454

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    When I needed to weld a hole in an exhaust mani, I talked to an friend of mine who's been welding for about 40 years, he told me to order "missile rod", he couldn't remember the number on the rod, only the generic name.
    I grabbed a couple pounds and he welded up a few pieces for me, I don't have a ton of run time on the parts but they've held up so far.


    https://www.google.com/search?ei=f5C....0.eC42W-0DWjY

  16. #36
    Supporting Member II Turbo Mopar Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sylmar, CA
    Posts
    2,584

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Turbo exhaust manifolds have high nickel content, so that is th rod that my welder uses; he also builds up surfaces before porting with a spray on nickel fusion welding powder.
    John Laing

    "The sole condition which is required in order to succeed in centralizing the supreme power in a democratic community, is to love equality, or to get men to believe you love it. Thus the science of despotism, which was once so complex is simplified, and reduced . . . . to a single principle."
    -- Alexis de Tocqueville

    "One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary."
    --Ayn Rand

    "To evolve, you don't need a Constitution. All you need is a legislature and a ballot box . . . . things will evolve as much as you want. All of these changes can come about democratically; you don't need a Constitution to do that and it's not the function of a Constitution to do that."
    -- Justice Antonin Scalia

  17. #37
    Rhymes with tortoise. Turbo Mopar Staff cordes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Tuscola, IL
    Posts
    21,441

    Re: Ported Stockers Revisited

    Quote Originally Posted by GLHS60 View Post
    Good question but mine is has anyone actually gone too far and broken through while porting??

    My pal Brian ported one for me very nicely but broke through in one spot.

    Looking for input on welding up the small hole.

    Any experienced input is appreciated!!

    Thanks
    Randy
    I've broken through one, but I haven't welded it up yet. It's at my father's place at this time. I think we'll get to it one day...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Knock sensors revisited
    By Force Fed Mopar in forum EFI Tuning
    Replies: 104
    Last Post: 04-12-2015, 10:56 AM
  2. Compounds revisited; Any TMers running them?
    By Rrider in forum Turbos & Intercoolers!
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 01-15-2013, 05:19 PM
  3. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06-21-2007, 12:24 PM
  4. Line Lock Revisited
    By Captain Chaos in forum Suspension, Brakes, Wheels, Traction
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-11-2007, 03:33 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •