Changing Intake ports to a D shape for better flow.

I'm retired this year and now that I'm have some spare time I need to start working on my D port intakes.
I have two options here,one is to use JB weld to build up the floor which will be anchored with a T-bolt system along with either aluminum mesh or fiber and I've used this in the past but my only concern would be near the short turn where anchoring isn't visible and lifting of the JB weld might be an issue.

Second option using a flat plate of aluminum .125 that'll be anchored by three radius head bolts threaded from port to bottom of head and locked in place with green sleeve retainer. My question is what grade of
aluminum should I use for the floor and can I use 5356 mig wire to seal the edges of the plate. Using a tig is out of the question there just no room and I can't use 4032 cuz my mig as no teflon liner, those birds nest can be a pain to unravel. Any input would be highly appreciated.

 

Signal thanks for the input. Using aluminum brazing rods would most likely cause warping issue and a risk I don't want cuz this head I purchased
has excellent casting with no chore shifting, just to hard to find a real good head. Silicon % of 5 to10 in flat plate aluminum isn't available from my researching
more half or less of 1% resulting in a higher coefficient thermal expansion lift at the short turn, might be a problem effecting flow to the valve seat but I'm going
to purchase some plates and do some testing to see how much expansion occurs.

I've purchased two types of port reconstructive epoxys that alot of porting pros use and will put the epoxies through sonical vibration testing using two types
air hammers on a test head in an effort to break loose the expoy from its adhesion,so we'll see what works and what doesn't . Keep you posted and thanks again for your input. Jack

 

Got some aluminum flat plate today .132 about .007 thicker but I can work that out with 36 grit rolls. New head stand built and the fun begins.

Been out of the mainstream of posting pictures for some time now,so what are steps in posting pictures?

 

Here are the D ports in the rough stage and when intake port is completely restructured ,the cross sectional area of inlet width wise can range from 34 to 36mm with a height of 31mm. These small ports pack a big punch with no ill effects in diminishing flow or velocity.

Some might question as to why I'd go to such trouble reconstructing a perfectly good intake port that as more than proven its self in supply sufficient flow for decades with the likes of shell, lilley,etc. I simply got bored porting the stock head and wanted to venture outside the box in attempt to reduce the xs intake port volume and increase floor width at the same time opening up the corners of the short turn.

There are two benefits in widening to flatten the floor and raising it. There are two pressure differentials in the port floor and roof, with floor being the highest and the shortest for flow to travel and roof being a low point and furthest to travel . By flattening the floor, raised and widening,flow speed is reduced in preventing flow over shooting the short turn and preventing unwanted turbulence at the valve and pocket bowel. Second,by raising the floor at the short turn gives a less erupt turn allowing the flow to take a longer path increasing it's momentum
and giving an option of short turn radiuses biasing flow either down or up the flow curve with cam lift.

I got the idea of D porting from rebuilding a Kohler Command engine and these engines when hot rodded can deliver upwards to a 100 plus HP at 6 plus thousand RPMs with very,very tiny D ports. It was enough to convince me to go for it and the results where an eye opener that smaller ports can deliver without compromises.

The flat aluminum plate was a no go ,expansion and difficulties securing it put the icing on the cake. JB weld is the only alternative, it will be built up in thickness still wet with several layers of sheet rock HD tape, you can't tear this stuff it's that tuff. Put a sample in the oven
at 375 degrees for three hours, then proceeded with air hammer sonic vibration testing for an hour and the JB weld held its adhesion with cracking.

Keep you posted when time is available ,a lot going on with house duties and if you want port dimensions I'll record them.
Jack

 

the manifold will be gradually build up like a ramp to form the D with JB

 

Without visually seeing the ports I'll help you the best I can and as you know the ports in most cases have severe casting deficiencies port to port and the valve seat machining into the bowel in some cases makes it difficult for a valve seat 3 angle cut with a stock valve, you have to accept it or install a larger valve to get the cut for flow increase. The porting pictures are floating around on this site,i'll have to find them and a few others that I have to better explain what areas should be addressed in touching up the port for better performance based on my experience. I have an inside divider tool marked in increments that I use for
port measurements and will list the dimensions the best I can .

 

I was experimenting with a welded up bath tub combustion chamber for my long rod and was struggling getting the flow numbers up due
valve shrouding. So I decided to try the D port,sent the head off to be flowed and the #s picked up everywhere up to 440 lift. It'll be
interesting to see how it flows with an open chamber.

 

What theory would that be? Ford pinto either came with oval or D shaped intake ports for the turbo version and Kohler engines came with D ports
so it's not a bit far fetched out there. It's a known fact the XS ports volumes can be excessive and when you factor in the crank short stroke reducing
intake port volume enhances performance which as been proven by some of the best Xs racing tuners. To this date I know of nothing written is stone
which would indicate the best method in accomplishing this in reshaping the intake port. It's about reducing port volume without hindering flow and velocity
whether by filling the round port, oval port, rectangular port and D port. What you're looking for is a gain or lose in flow and there where no loses in D shaping the port. You might wanna educate yourself on Chevy BB oval ports vs rectangular ports and you'll have better understanding why I went this route.
The D ports were tested by Hughs Hand Built with good results and would of been better if I had shaped the floor myself but it ran and had excellent throttle response.

 

Heres a kohler command with D ports, big valves , stroker crank, roller camshaft, chevy roller rockers ,roller lifters,etc pushing some series HP.

 

Here are some flow # for stock head Vs D ported head in two stages. Just look at the gains not #s
stock 100 lift 76 ,200 lift 118, 300 lift 162,400 lift 181, 440 lift 190
round port with bath tub combustion chamber
100 lift 83,200 lift 114,300 lift 137,400 lift 184,440 lift 187
D-port floor raised 3mm with wing built in front of guide boss
100 lift 91,200 lift 132, 300 lift 170,400 lift 185,440 lift 198
D port with wing removed in front of guide boss
100 lift 80,200 lift 119,300 lift 181,400 lift 201,440 lift 205
All these D port # gains were accomplished with port volume reduction and increased port velocity.

 

Here are the various ford ranger 2.3 heads,D ports are on the bottom and Ford went to this shape cuz the round ports volumes where to big effecting bottom end performance . The fix was D porting intake reducing port volume boosting port velocity without dimensioning CFM flow.

 

Hey Griz, life is to short and I'm not getting younger to worry about paper scribbling and theories but I will always listen with open mind.
You would'nt believe want some people in the US,Aussie and UK are do in modifying norton,bsa and triumph heads,just wish the XS had more meat
in the head to adapt the XR750 oval port. I might attempt a junior version of that port sometime down the road, it swirls, it flows big time in race version,
truly remarkable port with multi functions wrapped in one.

 

I have also spent a lot of money porting and flow testing the factory Xs probably close to twenty or more for my long rod combination and for a few
my internet buddies and where all in correlation to cam specs. Not one customer as complained of power lose, I even had a Canadian call me asking what the hell I did do to his friend head. I don't need a dyno to tell me other wise. I've worked very closely with a porter in the Atlanta area who's been grinding on ports for some 35 plus years who's tossed a few bones my way when it comes to porting. You ever hear of Hanson Racing( even they gave me a few tips on working the floor) well guess what they took a stock XS head and completely revamped it to the OW specs and their ported XS head out flowed it.
The standard XS head for sure has flaws and has been bolted on 1000cc motor's pumping out close to 100 HP
so in the rights hands it can deliver sufficient flow.
You ever hear of Micheal Morse? He runs 650central and I have a few conversations with him a long time ago when I got into porting the XS and his intake ports epoxied
up and chambers welded up,you name it he did it just to gain that fine edge.
Once you gain the experience in what works and dosen't you don't need a dyno period,that's what the track is for in real time conditions.
Now if you don't have the experience to prove the D port is a backward move, stop high jacking my thread with your BS. The XS head isn't a rocket ship
so it dosen't take a rocket scientist to improve flow for a straight shot to the valve,once you get a few flowed and tested under your belt