History Can anybody tell me what is going on here?

There are so many good reasons that setup is inferior to a crossflow design I can't even imagine why someone would tangle with it. Of course, the proof lies in the fact that nobody stuck with it.

 

This may be true, but these guys were working with the technology available to them at the time.
The concept of the overhead valve V-8 wasnt but about 15 or so years old at the time. Fast forward to 2013 and close to another 50 years of continous improvement, we now know today that the crossflow design is still the way to go.

 

No, I dont think it is true.

Guys like Crower, Costin, and Duckworth knew what they were doing.


It was a radical ( meaning expensive ) sollution for specific types of racing engines.
And they were very succesful.

I guess its one of those things thats difficult to see in the context of its era ( when today even the most basic shitbox shoppingcar has EFI, overhead cams and multi valves per cylinder)

 

Why do the cylinders care where the air and fuel enter and exit as long as they do it well?

 

Hot Rod magazine, Dec 1970. Sorry no scans.

I think packaging (space limitations) in production cars is a big reason this did not become popular.

 

As in that newspaper clip, the guys experimented, spent months on R&D, and found they got better power with the non-crossflow set-up.

I'm sure if they had purposefully designed heads from scratch they could have produced an even better cross-flow head, but I guess they had to work within the parameters of the push-rod placement.

 

This the article?

 

I saw that too. Bet its a spacer, bet its a big 'un.

 

i agree with 31Vicky with a hemi it looks that way to me ,,,way cool though....I WONDER......UH...

 

The non cross flow design is generally considered to be inferior to a crossflow design in terms of ultimate engineering potential for two reasons. Firstly, there is limited space when inlet and exhaust ports are arranged in a line on one side of the head meaning a reduction in port area compared to a crossflow head. This mainly affects power delivery at high rpm by limiting airflow. Secondly, since inlet and exhaust manifolds are both on the same side of the engine and in close proximity, the inlet manifold and carburetor (if applicable) are heated by the exhaust. This heating reduces the density of the inlet charge and hence the volumetric efficiency of the engine. In a spark-ignition petrol engine the heat also increases the likely hood of pre-ignition or detonation which limits the allowable compression ratio reducing both power and efficiency.

The main advantage of the non cross flow cylinder head is that both the intake mixture and the exiting exhaust gas cause a tendency to swirl in the same direction in the combustion chamber. In a crossflow head the inlet and exhaust gases promote swirl in opposite directions so that during overlap the swirl changes directions. The constant swirl during overlap which results in a reverse-flow cylinder head promotes better mixing and hence better scavenging of the end gas. The fact that the inlet charge must change direction before going out the exhaust makes it less likely that fresh mixture will make it out the exhaust before mixing during overlap. Overall this improves volumetric efficiency and reduces emissions.

In some turbo applications the non cross flow promotes easier and shorter plumbing issues by having the intake and exhaust so close together.

 

In any engine, 'real estate' is always at a premium when it comes to port configuration. Look at that engine - they are wasting one entire side of the cylinder head by not having any ports on it. And by extension, they are crowding the other side big-time.

Hotroddon says the same thing above but I thought I'd restate it since I made the initial comment.