Unmatched head runners

[Frankshaft]

I never understood the logic on why people used to try to have equal flow rate's on a BBC left/right port by doing more to the bad port, and nothing or minimal to the good port for egual flowz. My simple logic and common Sense approach has always been, who cares? Why would I want to reduce power on 4 cylinders to match the other 4? I could have made 10 or 15 or even 20 more by maximizing all the ports, the 4x10 or 15 or 20, is 40-80 hp I am giving up. For what? What's the thought process? No attacks, no arguments, just thinking out loud. That logic never made sense to me.

If putting a bigger valve in 4 cylinders only, and doing more work to those 4 ports, to equalize flowz, why not put the bigger valve in the other 4 too, and make even more power. What's the difference.

[BOOT]

I think rpm range plays a role in trying to equal out things as grobert101 said earlier harmonics

Walter R Malik I think the use of four larger valves for bad ports was interesting as well. It could be another way to widen power range used on a diff head like the unmatched runners, if that's what someone wanted.

[Ron E]

I think the reasoning on equalizing the ports related to a central point ignition. One goal/hope/prayer was to allow them tune up closer when cylinder to cylinder timing wasn't an option. Don't know if it ever worked.

[DrillDawg]

If you want to extend your torque curve just look at what some of the EMC winners have done in the past. Good flowing heads, mild duration cams, correctly sized intake and exhaust tracts, relatively high compression ratio, properly setup carb with good booster signal at lower rpms, and I would run the largest cuin that is reasonably possible.

[cjperformance]

I can see that a wider useable rpm range may come out of uneven runners/cylinder rpm peaks but apart from possibly a narrow rpm area one peak is going to be crutching anothers peak. It could probably be set up to improve an average over a wider rpm area but at the expense of killing some peak from either cylinder arrangement.
Think of an extreme like connecting 2 engines together, 1 a low down tq monster, the other a high rpm hp beast. At any given rpm one is burning up tq/hp to crutch the misgivings of the other, but hypothetically this could help the driveablilty of the hp beast down low and allow sone more rpm from the tq monster!

[BOOT]

I think rpm range plays a role in trying to equal out things as grobert101 said earlier harmonics

Walter R Malik I think the use of four larger valves for bad ports was interesting as well. It could be another way to widen power range used on a diff head like the unmatched runners, if that's what someone wanted.

Like Carnut said in his post is what I meant to also say.

[BOOT]

I think the reasoning on equalizing the ports related to a central point ignition. One goal/hope/prayer was to allow them tune up closer when cylinder to cylinder timing wasn't an option. Don't know if it ever worked.

Why I'd only try it with a fully divided dual plane with a carb prob, that way you could tune either side.

[BOOT]

If you want to extend your torque curve just look at what some of the EMC winners have done in the past. Good flowing heads, mild duration cams, correctly sized intake and exhaust tracts, relatively high compression ratio, properly setup carb with good booster signal at lower rpms, and I would run the largest cuin that is reasonably possible.

Almost brought up EMC in an earlier post but not really noticed anything unmatched/even in the stuff I've seen from EMC, yet.