Porting a Lister cylinder head and intake

[mobile_bob]

shifty

i guess i will do this in snippets

"All of your ideas were left untried. Apparently you let other assholes convince you it wasn't worth the time. I guess you were never the type to actually try anything anyway, preferring instead to waste the hours away endlessly pondering and discussing, accomplishing nothing other than stroking your own ego."

you really should do a bit more reading!  holy crap!  apparently youth has no patience?  do you really think i let anyone talk me out of anything?  really?  apparently you did not avail yourself of the concrete vs resilient mount discussion? 

i may not have posted all of the work i have done here on this forum, but i have on others, and there is much that i have not published, for reasons you likely would not understand.

ego?  really?  i gave up on that one years ago!  ego? seems like something you are not in short supply of.

"Porting isn't rocket science. You could take an old junk head and practice, and in 3-6 hours work fully port a Lister cylinder head from start to finish. "

simply picking up a die grinder and a set of stones surely is not rocket science, however getting results is not as simple as some would like to believe... quite the contrary!

one must understand what all is involved in proper port design, especially when it comes to a slow speed diesel!  simply going in an removing things without understanding why they are there is likely to result in an engine that not only does not make more power, but likely less and more likely run dirtier!  some of the designs incorporate a shelf that is designed to provide additional swirl and aid in scavenging spent gasses... leading to a cleaner burn.

now as for all the other drivel bounded by less than appropriate language and offensive behavior... all i can say is this... 

grow up dude!

if you truly are as intelligent as you would have others believe, you would not have to resort to ridicule and profane language to get your point across.  doing so only proves your lack of depth or lack of understanding of the subject at hand.  this is a schoolboys approach to debate, when forced to support his claims to resort to ridicule, foul language and name calling.

bob g

[honda lee]

This person  (shiftless ) has no place on this site he is certainly not the least bit funny  but is totally disrespectful  and an ass ! If I have a vote this is not the type of person we want to be posting on this site. That is my two cents worth.
Or at least till he is back on his meds

[buickanddeere]

I just wish your two could line up side by side and see who can pee the farthest. Just to get the both of you over it.

[buickanddeere]

Alright I'll go back and re-read. It's rather smelly and I did not want to wade through it all.

[Schwen]

During the course of that long and painful thread, someone quoted a theoretical length the intake would need to be to take advantage of the natural oscillation frequency of that moving column of air. Can you remind me how long it would need to be to suit that engine speed?

[mobile_bob]

it has been years since i did the calculations, so from memory they are as follows

the intake needs to be something on the order of 10 ft and the exhaust something around 15 plus feet.

having said that, and in support of Glort's comments...

these long runs of piping to get the effect, never get their because of friction within the pipes

this is precisely why the charts that were generated by MIT (among many others) drop off at about 1200rpm, below which the friction of the runner outweighs any possible gains from the ram effect of the long runner.

fwiw

my recall of the actual runner lengths is probably off by a significant amount, however they are close enough to illustrate the folly in going that route.

bob g

[newlister]

All interesting stuff Mark. if you will allow me to mention a ford transit -?  my old 190 have used it on veg oil that I've filtered.  not a pretty sight i can tell you. But the point I'm making the transit has a wosit in the inlet, lol butterfly ?  the old mind forgets now.  that reduces the air intake.  for years Ive run a transit with out this valve, throttle butterfly. ? and the intake has always been very noisy, more so than the exhaust. but with this valve fitted it closes the air intake off, and it makes it a lot quite r. there is a rod that connects to the injection pump and as when opening the pump/accelerator. it also opens this butterfly.  but the Lister does not need to rev like the transit does. so this is something that is in my head now. --- if you can understand me. 

[buickanddeere]

    You fellows have raised an interesting  point about induction when mentioning one way reed valves. While not practical in the real world .........Thinking of the intake noise when the intake valve opens while there is still some combustion chamber pressure even if the cam is "timed" correctly.
   What if............the Lister or Petter could have a two stroke engine type of reed valve mounted as close as possible to the intake valve
    Just a theoretical question......... Yes I know we are talking low single digit percent gains at the very best 

[millman56]

On the Transit 2.5 DI engines fitted with what is colloquially called the banana manifold, the butterfly valve is there to create a depression in the manifold at low throttle settings which as Glort says actuates the EGR valve,   a crappy side effect is that oil oil mist coming through the crankcase ventilator which when mixed with hot exhaust gas eventually bungs the manifold with black goop.   Been there done that,  2.5 DIs do have a very noisy inlet.

Mark.

[millman56]

Just a thought off the side, a CS when running under load with a straight through type silencer, produces quite a powerful shock wave which precedes the actual exhaust gas, is there a way of harnessing this to somehow aid the induction process?

Mark.

[buickanddeere]

Some reciprocating diesels and gas turbines throttle the inlet to increased efficiency at low power output levels.