I guess most of that was like 1st yr Physics. But interesting to see the need for velocity in the porting of heads.
Agreed. I can’t think of a dual carb where the two could be so far apart. Can’t say if those ports follow some of the same low port thinking, as I’ve never seen inside one. But the arc of the runners would be conducive to a low port design.Understood. Chrysler's cross-ram 413 perhaps being the most outrageous example of intake tuning.
I’d actually like to think that it was somebody or some team that came up with the idea to make the ports essentially a straight shot. Focus on filling the cylinder. I’d think tumble might benefit from the symmetry, but I doubt swirl was much of a consideration...at least as opposed to the old 2V PI heads.I imagine current port profiles have become what they are for swirl and tumble reasons. CFD has to beat trial and error iterations in the metal at least to get you pointed in the right direction.
Interesting . . . sounds like classic crossflow design.I’d actually like to think that it was somebody or some team that came up with the idea to make the ports essentially a straight shot. Focus on filling the cylinder.
I agree or at least suspect it was inspired by such earlier designs. And I like to believe that comes from humans that understand the past over just following CFD iterations that took time and incremental changes toward similar strategies.Interesting . . . sounds like classic crossflow design.
I doubt anybody had to look very hard to find inspiration. Start with a 1950's / 1960's Chrysler hemi head and stuff a couple more valves in each cylinder. Something I think Chrysler actually toyed around with until NASCAR or somebody said it wasn't going to be allowed to play with the rest of the kids.