Quick question about my port timing

[SlowMoe]

Aight I just recently got these cylinders. They are supposed to have been ported by a guy named "Coonie". The port work looks a little different but the quality of the work is really good.

 

They are drag ported and I measured 26.5 mm from deck to top of exhaust and 42mm from deck to mains, secondaries 44mm from deck to boost. They are set up especially for gas; I am guessing the timing in near 198/128 but not sure. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

[BANSHEE HP]

i came up with 196/125 using your measurements on a 54mm 110 rod crank.

[Burt Reynolds]

Thats wierd,do the boost side intake ports lead directly to the transfers and not into the crank area? Seems like with those boost ports when the piston is on the down stroke and the skirt passes the intake it would push up some of the air/fuel back up in the intake area instead of up through the transfers.

[mikechief]

looks like the bottom of the e-port has had alittle work....stroker?

the intake looks way nice....is the bridge knife edged or flat ?hard to tell in the pic

I read that the boost ports really shine at constant rpm ....like flat track

[AKheathen]

Thats wierd,do the boost side intake ports lead directly to the transfers and not into the crank area? Seems like with those boost ports when the piston is on the down stroke and the skirt passes the intake it would push up some of the air/fuel back up in the intake area instead of up through the transfers.

.....and that will not only close the reeds quicker, but charge the 5th transfer quicker via the intake. probably better clean-out. looks like some decent hand-work, and flat bridge, btw...... however, what stands out to me, is 1: the exhaust 'hurse-shoe.... it looks like it does more bad to the rings, than any good, and 2: the transfer blending at the bottom is not symetrical from each-other.... neither are any of the ports, now that i look closer...and that's just looking at a pic....... also, the gouges by the port need fixed, but what caused them in the first place? ring snag?

[mikechief]

yeah..that e-port would be hard on rings wouldn't it . How bout putting a monsterous chamfer on the bottom hump ?

how big are the boost ports ? Did they have to weld on em ? I want some boost ports

[jbooker82]

Ask Sloryder he is the self proclaimed porting master around here. Maybe he will chime in.

[Burt Reynolds]

.....and that will not only close the reeds quicker, but charge the 5th transfer quicker via the intake. probably better clean-out. looks like some decent hand-work, and flat bridge, btw...... however, what stands out to me, is 1: the exhaust 'hurse-shoe.... it looks like it does more bad to the rings, than any good, and 2: the transfer blending at the bottom is not symetrical from each-other.... neither are any of the ports, now that i look closer...and that's just looking at a pic....... also, the gouges by the port need fixed, but what caused them in the first place? ring snag?

 

 

Ok i see what your saying. I have just never seen that before. Thats a neat idea i wander how much it actualy helps.

 

That horseshoe shaped exhaust part looks like a big ring catcher to me,maybe thats why the guy isnt running them anymore.

[mopar1rules]

In the pic that shows the bottom of the cylinder, is that daylight I see thru the transfer runner? Its a white ball approx the size of a BB. In the left runner. Also, I can see where "coonie" f'ed up on the side of one of the intake ports. Not to mention the bottom of the transfer cutouts is kinda uneven from side to side. Tell coonie to leave cylinders alone.

[mikechief]

Ask Sloryder he is the self proclaimed porting master around here. Maybe he will chime in.

 

 

 

Let the adults talk now sweety ....go to your room and watch sponge bob or something

[SlowMoe]

Somebody needs some hateraide

 

Anyway

1. The exhaust "hump does have a huge chamfer.

2. The white ball in the transfer is styrofoam.

3. The transfers are left asymetrical intentionally; with the quality of the work throughout the rest of the cylinders i highly doubt he just forgot to make them symetrical on both cylinders. Do you realize that one set of runners has the potential to be enlarged a good bit more due to being on the outside of the cylinder? Both mains read 19mm across. Look closer. They are symetrical.

4. There are no serious gouges; none at all that snag my fingernail. Pics make them look bad.

5. Boyesen ports are drilled at the angle I typically see them at on banshees.

6. Intake bridge is flat.

 

All in all I really believe this guy knows what he is doing. A close look at these cylinders shows some real quality. The transfer runners are super smooth and have been sculpted really well.

Edited March 22, 2011 by SlowMoe

[So Cal Suspension]

The transfers are left asymetrical intentionally; with the quality of the work throughout the rest of the cylinders i highly doubt he just forgot to make them symetrical on both cylinders. Do you realize that one set of runners has the potential to be enlarged a good bit more due to being on the outside of the cylinder? Both mains read 19mm across. Look closer. They are symetrical.

 

I'm confused now.

[SlowMoe]

I'm confused now.

 

I doubt it.

The ports asymetrical APPEARANCE is intentional. If you hog the outside transfers out all the way the will be bigger than the inside ones. Upon taking a quick glance they may look to be the same size.

[SlowMoe]

i came up with 196/125 using your measurements on a 54mm 110 rod crank.

 

Were you using a deck height of zero? If so what are the numbers with a .020" deck height?

[SlowMoe]

In the pic that shows the bottom of the cylinder, is that daylight I see thru the transfer runner? Its a white ball approx the size of a BB. In the left runner. Also, I can see where "coonie" f'ed up on the side of one of the intake ports. Not to mention the bottom of the transfer cutouts is kinda uneven from side to side. Tell coonie to leave cylinders alone.

 

What about this one?