Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Hey Guest! British Car Forum has been supporting enthusiasts for over 25 years by providing a great place to share our love for British cars. You can support our efforts by upgrading your membership for less than the dues of most car clubs. There are some perks with a member upgrade!
**Upgrade Now** (PS: Upgraded members don't see this banner, nor will you see the Google ads that appear on the site.)
Look at the routing of his engine breather line, valve cover, timeing cover, mech, fuel pump cover. But where does it go?? Think must be to a catch can.
Okay so I would think it would have helped out more to have given the head four exhaust ports instead of three.
What is the reason our engines only get the three tubes instead a nice string of four headers coming out? Is it something about not having enough room for four flanges?
I believe it was due to cooling efficiency in part. In ~theory~ holes 2 & 3 are each using the middle tube one rev apart, no "interference" for the two exhaust strokes.
I think the available cam choices is the reason the three port design was retained in the crossflow. And the water jacket feed points would be problematic too.
Those are just a WAG on my part, Lotus (Mike Costin & Pete Duckworth) designed a DOHC head for the Ford Kent block with separate in and out holes (but the cam in the block was only kept as a jackshaft, driving just the dizzy and oil pump).
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.