High-port vs. Low-port... pros & cons

[Wayne Cox]

At 04:44 PM 8/22/2002 -0500, Donovan Maxwell wrote:
>My question is: Which is better, high-port or low-port?

Welp, I joined the list just about the time those low port SE-R guys
started coming around, as well as those funky looking new 200SXs.  1995-ish?

The question has been kicked around a bunch over the years (though not so
much lately), and I think the consensus is:  There's not a whole lot of
difference, esp. for a mild street motor.

* High Port:  slightly better top end HP;  racier looking intake;  easier
access to injectors and some other parts;  probably more potential turbo
HP;  more crowded engine bay (with AIV, etc)

* Low Port: slightly better low end torque;  better emissions;  less engine
bay clutter (no AIV, ignition integrated into distributor);  easier access
to throttle body and clutch adjustment.  Extra OBD-II crap to deal with on
the ECU, but some benefits, too.  Think you can swap ECUs around for a
whole motor swap.

I think Mike K and some of the hard-core motor contingent (aww, crap - I
used to be able to call myself one of them) have said the high port is the
way to go.  But there are plenty of both turning comparable performance
numbers.  I intentionally have not mentioned things irrelevant to a motor
build up, such as cam differences over the years.

    -Wayne    '91 NX2k - '93 NK2k - '92 SE-R (parts car?)