i ported my 1962 victor lawn mower motor [intake port] the other day and i had to put the big carby on it , the one with the slide in it, well it now has so much torque now its not funny

When a droplet of fuel is running along a polished wall it will grab, leads to 'wet walls'. With a slightly rough surface between the intake valve and wherever the fuel joins air hold the fuel droplets away from the walls (thin layer of turbulance at the wall). In reality it makes a pooftenth of a % difference, but there is apparently an advantage, especially at lower rpm.

Chambers and exhaust are polished not for flow but to stop carbon build up.

Im no expert when it comes to the finer points of head porting, but this is what I was told by my machiner when I built my first engine. A large part of the work he does is for racing and his engines are always up the front of the pack.

This is the finish the recommend for intake ports:

no, they are for reduced air drag


i take it you dont have much to do with tuning an EFI system?? more to the point, what have you done in relation to injector end angles?? and with a carby, any time the valve isnt open, you have petrol sitting there waiting


ill keep a keen eye on your project... we are wanting 230rwkw from this project

Nice work man.You do know what youre talking about.

As far as kosteci goes I dont believe that you can get 500hp flow from an i6 head without remanufacturing it.

500 HP from an I6 head is a big, big ask. I haven't seen one, little than ever heard of Kosteci.

I was playing with cars & m/bikes before you were born, and thats if you are 22. Anyway, have you heard of "K-Jetronic fuel injection"????
K means constant, like in Physics, by the way, I have studied Physics.
In this injection system, the Injectors are flowing (not pulsing like electronic stuff), constantly, only the amount that is required, via the foot on the throttle and airflow through the flap which is linked via a rod to the metering body, is going in, so its puting fuel in all the time unless switched off.
Now, say this engine is Idling at 800rpm, so the cam is doing 400rpm, which means the inlet valves are opening & closing at 6.66 times per second, so when is fuel going to get a chance to "Puddle".????

Fuel can be mommentarily suspended in motion by negative pulsation from the inlet valves closing, so the more violent the cam, the more lopy the idle gets from this happening.

I take it you haven't had much to do with Projectiles???
Take a 1" dia steel ball, take one airblower (workshop one for blowing things dry & stuff), have the trigger pulled in, with the nozzle facing straight up, place the steel ball in the air stream, about 2" to 3" above the nozzle, and the steel ball will float there, in mid-air, and notice the ball will spin, and if this were doing 200m or 300mps, it would vere off the intended course. Just like in criket, the pace-men use the seam to steer the ball in flight.

As for HP at the rear wheels, I don't know, but I'm hoping to get 200Kw at the flywheel, so we'll see how it goes.

From what you say about the golf balls I assume you haven't done alot of physics....studied perhaps, but obvsiously not in depth. It is well known in aerodynamics that a very flat surface creates more drag. The dimples on the golf ball create small eddy currents similar to what happens at the tip of an aircraft wing but in two different directions which changes the way the boundary flow breaks off at the tail of the ball, ie the air moves over the ball easier because it produces less turbulence in its wake and hence less drag. take your same metal ball but put dimples in the surface but still maintain the weight of the ball (as your fighting gravity here in your little experiment and we want things to be fair) and you will find that the ball will sit lower as there is less drag and hence the force exerted on the ball is lower. Take your shiny ball and hit it and then take the dimpled ball and hit it, same angle, force etc, and the dimpled ball will go further due to reduced drag.


It is also well known that atomised liquids can come out of suspension in an air flow when subjected to forces which squeeze the particles close together, this generally happens at the surface of a material especially around corners. This is NOT generally a concern for sequential fuel injected cars where the fuel is atomised directly over the intake port, but IS a big concern with carburated engines, or bank fire injection. The major advantage to having roughed intake walls is that the small amount of turbulence created at the boundary of the flow actually reduces drag caused by the walls of the runners, this reduces the effective intake diameter by a very small amount, but actually increases flow dramatically as it decreases the turbulence created as air moves around a curve.


Just because your older does not make you right. Just because you "studied" physics does not mean you covered the areas of thermodynamics, fluidynamics, and aerodynamics required to make an educated comment about the subject. Even if you HAVE studied in these areas unless you have been studying recently, or have been keeping up with latest research then most of what you learnt will have been found to be incorrect. Hell half the stuff they teach to highschool students and even to first and second year uni students (unless your doing Eng/Phy) is just plain false. I have only just scratched the surface of the physics involved, infact to properly understand what is going on you really need to be doing a PhD in engine flow dynamics, it really IS that complicated.

Sorry to sound like a d***head, but I'm tired of hearing old wives tales about how backpressure is required to make torque, and how shiny surfaces are required for something to flow well, because quite frankly its all s**t, and the sooner people stop throwing them around, the sooner we can put them to rest and start educating people properly.

Sorry dude, I studied over 20yrs ago, but why then are Fighter aircraft not covered in dimples??? They'll spend billions of $$$$ on developing them, and no dimples. As for civvy aircraft, the only development there is puting the upturned ends on the wing tips.
As for backpressure, never really believed in it, except for 2 stroke engines.

Think of the dimples as making a small amount of covering turbulence on the surface, which amongst other thing essentially makes the surface appear more "slippery". This also reduces the amount of lift the surface makes. This is undesirable in an aircraft, where the highest possible lift needs to be achieved. Aircraft wings rely on attached flows at differing speeds to achieve high lift, and then try to reduce drag as much as possible by tapering the surface (which helps to keep the flow attached also) and having low frontal area.

On civvy planes the wingtips are upturned to reduce wingtip vortexes (which increase wake turbulence), wake turbulence causes drag but also has been linked to crashes of light aircraft following larger aircraft on approach.

Unfortunately after 20yrs most of what you were taught has probably been shown to either be completely untrue, or only work in certain simple cases. I appreciate that you studied and that your older (hence have spent more time with cars), its just that passing around false information continues to propagate these myths, and people tend to think the myths are fact. Look into some aerodynamics and fluidynamics books, if your physics is good you will have little trouble understanding modern physics and then you will realise what I'm talking about is true. It really does pay to keep up-to-date. You may find another 5hp for free just by revising what you thought you knew, and applying it.

Since your up on Physics, have they worked out if light is Photons or waves???

waves, like the waves you guys are making. lol

Both depending on what you are trying to determine, normal particles (ie ones that have mass) can be described as waves also using Schrödinger's equation.

The only real difference between fermions (electrons neutrons protons etc) and bosons (light etc) is that fermions have half-integer-spin, hence are governed by the pauli exclusion principle ie two can't have the same quantum state. bosons have integer-spin hence CAN have the same quantum state, and hence may occupy the same space (ie its much easier to describe their interactions using waves) a photon is still a particle tho, and exerts pressure on a surface, can undergo collisions etc. Basically they agree that all fermions and bosons can be described by their particle AND wave properties, it just makes it easier to calculate an outcome by using the description that matches the situation. Thats probably the easiest way I can put it

You swallowed the book on that one.............lol..
So, then, they haven't really decided, packages of energy, or waves.

Unfortunately being an electronic engineer yes I had to swallow alot of the quantum physics text book

I'm currently undertaking a PhD, in wireless networking stuff tho, so now I work more with microwaves and spend most of my days taking algorithms and programming them into the simulator in C++. My honours thesis was on Photonic band gap devices, where I built an insulator for light and proved that PBG devices can make light turn 90dgrees without loss. Lots of solving Maxwells equations as tho they were schrodingers equation only using permeativity and permeability vectors rather than energy levels. So yeah I spent quite a lot of time on quantum theories and effects. Its not fun I can tell you, hahah, but it DOES help when you look at simpler things like aerodynamics and fluidynamics haha, and in the next room some of my mates are undertaking PhD's in the area of maths/physics one in particular in the area of aerospace, so I guess I spend a lot of time reading about that sort of crap hahah.

anyways back to KEC......I'm still waiting for my head to come back from them damnit haha, nah they are flat out..and the complete date is set for the 31st, will have more results to post then hopefully.

I like to think that I "think outside the box".
My wife has a 1987 Kwaka GPz900R, ( Darth Vader model) and when I talked to M/cycle mechanics, about not having an airbox for the filter, they said it could not be done, won't run properly..etc...etc.........anyway, I did it, and it goes like stink.
I made ramstacks out of alloy, and fitted K&N Oval pods to it, and rejetted the carb's accordingly, and made a catch tank/oil breather assembly, that all works.
I'm doing similar with my 88EA, a mixture of bits from EA to BA. and custom stuff inbetween.

Good luck on your PhD.