Got my ported 333's back from my cylinder head guy

1964SuperStocker

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
90644510_2586601338254360_780930306881355776_n.jpg
Picked this off of Facebook 348-409 groups. It can be done. You just have to be careful. In theory it looks like an issue but keep in mind that fluid dynamics are a magical thing that blow away experts in many fields every day. Remember the 881 intakes have those hard 90 degree corners inside the intakes. Someone at GM thought that it was a good idea and they ran with it. Turns out they were very wrong because Every dual quad Edelbrock made today isn't really special outside of the fact that they simply did some flow tests before saying "Make them".
 

427John

Well Known Member
There is no magic involved with fluid flow,hydrodynamics and aerodynamics,it is fairly straightforward and follows the laws of physics as expected,but what isn't as well understood is how a given amount of airflow into a combustion chamber correlates into power production,many top engine builders agree that quality of airflow is more important than quantity,that is where I would say the magic is.While I like the looks of that intake port it may be problematic getting the intake gasket to seal up,but I'm guessing epoxying up the bolt hole will take care of that.The question is will a large port intake line up with the ports?
 

427John

Well Known Member
The example you gave of the factory manifolds sharp turns isn't necessarily an example of poor engineering,I believe those guys fully understand how to get the best results,the problem is they have to make compromises to accommodate things like fitting something into an existing area,ease of manufacture,accessibility for service,and last but not least cost,even back then bean counters ran the world.
 

1964SuperStocker

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
There is no magic involved with fluid flow,hydrodynamics and aerodynamics,it is fairly straightforward and follows the laws of physics as expected,but what isn't as well understood is how a given amount of airflow into a combustion chamber correlates into power production,many top engine builders agree that quality of airflow is more important than quantity,that is where I would say the magic is.While I like the looks of that intake port it may be problematic getting the intake gasket to seal up,but I'm guessing epoxying up the bolt hole will take care of that.The question is will a large port intake line up with the ports?
Disagree completely on the assertion that any part of "fluid flow,hydrodynamics and aerodynamics,it is fairly straightforward and follows the laws of physics as expected". NASA wouldn't exist if that were true. GM, Ford, Ferrari and every other car company wouldn't still be using wind tunnels if that were true. If I remember right, I read on here that the engineers themselves thought that the sharp 90 turns would create a "useful vortices". Think of any other car company that has ever created 90 degree corners in their intakes with the idea that such a corner would assist air/fuel. I can't think of one.
 

1964SuperStocker

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
Publicly GM had a hot ticket with the beach boys singing about the 409 but behind the scenes GM also knew that the real star was getting all of the attention the "Mystery Motor". The Mystery Motor was a working engine in 1963 meaning no one cared to spend another minute working any bugs out of the short lived 348-409 because it was not the future of GM. Much like the Ford Tri-Motor airplane had an extremely poorly designed exterior skin. Not given the time or resources to work out the "fairly straightforward and follows the laws of physics as expected" we can look back and laugh a little.
 

427John

Well Known Member
The corrugated skin of the tri-motor and various Junkers aircraft of the era was chosen for its additional strength with minimal weight penalty,at this time of fixed landing gear,low powered engines,biplane or externally braced monoplane wing configurations,and attendant low speeds,I,m guessing they figured the strength advantage penciled out above any additional drag on an already drag laden airplane.Also the science of aerodynamics at this time was just getting up a good head of steam.Just because they didn't know any better yet,doesn't mean they were stupid,just means they didn't know any better yet.
 

427John

Well Known Member
Around the time of the ford trimotor was when the genius Kelly Johnson came on the scene,he designed a string of groundbreaking aircraft,including the first plane that could attain speeds high enough to experience effects from approaching the transonic region,the P-38 lightning.Imagine that guy designing the SR-71 blackbird with a slide rule.
 

1964SuperStocker

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
The corrugated skin of the tri-motor and various Junkers aircraft of the era was chosen for its additional strength with minimal weight penalty,at this time of fixed landing gear,low powered engines,biplane or externally braced monoplane wing configurations,and attendant low speeds,I,m guessing they figured the strength advantage penciled out above any additional drag on an already drag laden airplane.Also the science of aerodynamics at this time was just getting up a good head of steam.Just because they didn't know any better yet,doesn't mean they were stupid,just means they didn't know any better yet.
Ford lost in 2 different courts for copying the patents of the Professor Hugo Junkers (bad choice) #1 and corrugated did add to stiffness but the resulting drag reduced its overall performance (bad choice #2) As this was originally an observation about the use of poor judgement to produce a poor performance product I would say my observation and memory of the subject matter still stands. Besides I would never have mentioned the Engineers at GM knowing they made a mistake with the intake design if I hadn't read about it in my studies of the 348-409 history. I'll work on finding that information and post it on here with source information so we can continue to focus our energies on keeping the history straight with less opinion and more facts. I just want everyone to know the facts only.
 

1964SuperStocker

Well Known Member
Supporting Member 3
Around the time of the ford trimotor was when the genius Kelly Johnson came on the scene,he designed a string of groundbreaking aircraft,including the first plane that could attain speeds high enough to experience effects from approaching the transonic region,the P-38 lightning.Imagine that guy designing the SR-71 blackbird with a slide rule.
Every time i go for another check ride I bust out my paper computer to triangulate my location and the instructors always freak out. They want to use their GPS and always laugh because I was one of the last generation to use the paper computer in 1999 before GPS really took off in flight instruction. The slide rule was a useful tool in skilled hands. Willam Bushnell Stout came up with the original designs of the tri-motor which was sold to Ford when Stout folded.
 

427John

Well Known Member
I would say that seeing how the trimotor had one of the best safety records at the time in an era where air travel was still somewhat risky,I would say it performed better than most in the essential task of getting the passengers there safe and sound.If this is all because it was marketed under the Ford name,get over it you yourself pointed out that it was designed elsewhere,Ford just bought a failing company,like so many other corporations do.
 
Top