[Goatman]

Are those the same "look like crap E-heads" that got Marty Palbykin and Rodney Butler into the 6's at 2800-2900 lbs?

Gimme a break.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....

[Cliff R]

To define expensive and poor fitting. Have been involved with a few E head swaps from "D" ports. This mandates a new set of headers, these are not inexpensive. Almost every set I've had to install required a bit of "custom" tweaking here and there. One set in particular fit OK, however they also mandated the purchase of a remote oil filter and a custom small body started, adding only further expense to the conversion. I'm not in any way trying to bash E heads. I consider the KRE aluminum "D" port heads an excellent replacment head with improved performance potential. Consider the actual cost of correctly preparing an iron "D" port head, including the porting to get to 280cfm. They look like a pretty good bargain to me......Cliff

[myckee]

If these heads have even identical performance versus the Edelbrock's, then I will seriously condider them. Why? Well, because I think it is a collossal rip off to be forced to pay 4 or 5 times as much for a set of round port headers than what my perfectly fitting Hedman d-ports cost. There is no big deal with the round ports except they have a fifferent flange. I don't think that flange justifies the price.

A set of SD-Performance ported E-heads cost approx $3000CAN and when I am forced to spend almost $1000CAN for a set of coated round port headers, its ridiculous.

Kudos to KRE for bringing something new and worthwhile to our hobby.

[Goatman]

Mykee, et al, 280+ CFM will require a 2" primary header. Its not just the flange that is different.

PS.

1970 GTO, 2" Hooker round port headers, no mods to header, frame, or oiling system. No problems.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....

[Brian Baker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goatman:
Are those the same "look like crap E-heads" that got Marty Palbykin and Rodney Butler into the 6's at 2800-2900 lbs?

Gimme a break.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhhhh, Marty got their with iron d-ports, not E-heads.

[Brian Baker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Goatman:
Mykee, et al, 280+ CFM will require a 2" primary header. Its not just the flange that is different.

PS.

1970 GTO, 2" Hooker round port headers, no mods to header, frame, or oiling system. No problems.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. There have been more than a few racers out there with merely 1-3/4" headers that have made good power. Torment's old combo comes to mind with his blown Firebird that runs 9's.

[Goatman]

Brian, Marty and Torment both went to round port heads.

Torment has my RAIV's on his motor as we speak.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....

[Brian Baker]

I know. Marty went 6.90's before the switch. Torment ran solid 9's before the switch. I followed Torment's entire thread about the bugs he had to work out when switching to E-heads (after the car slowed).

[Goatman]

Yes, I have those E-heads now and we needed to replace a couple of seats in them and the valves weren't really good either. I bought all new valves for it.

Garbage in, garbage out. I have no doubt they'll run better now.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....

[Brian Baker]

I thought the problem was with the cam and exhaust scavenging? He was having problems maintaining the same level of boost that he had with the old combo without increasing blower speed and it was surmised that the head/cam combo was too efficient on the exhaust side.

[Brian Baker]

At any rate, once his bugs are worked out (if they haven't been already) I'm sure he'll be faster than he was with the d-ports.

[Goatman]

I can only surmise that part of the problem was with the valves.

Besides, my RAIV's flowed more than the stock E-heads did, so I hope that wasn't/isn't the case.

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....

[Will]

Why is it that Pontiac circles seem to be so heavily populated with people who are never satisfied?

There are a plethora of aftermarket heads available for Chevies and Fords. For years I've been hearing Pontiac people saying "we're ignored in the aftermarket. Look how many different heads are available for Chevies and Fords but all we get is Edelbrocks."

Now a new aluminum head is coming out that will fill a different niche than the E-heads and people are whining and complaining again. "We don't need 'em, Edelbrocks are good enough, why would anyone want anything else." I've never heard such things from Chevy guys. Never heard one say "GM Fast-burn heads are all you need, why would you want anything different."

Fer cryin' out loud. Choices are good. Competition is good. The two heads will fill different needs.

If the KRE heads have smaller port volumes than D-ports yet still flow in the 270-280 cfm range then that speaks volumes about their usefulness as a street head. Smaller, more efficient ports will almost always work better on your typical street car, providing more efficient low-RPM cylinder filling for better torque and responsiveness off-idle.

A more efficient combustion chamber design could be worth a significant power boost all by itself. Simply increasing combustion efficiency in street RPM ranges (6000 and below) would make the heads a worthwhile swap.

Consider the guy who's got a basically solid engine and a stock set of D-ports on it. He's already put in a nice cam, a good intake, and a set of nice headers. His car is running well, but it's time to up the ante. He can buy a ported set of iron heads, he can buy the KRE heads, or he can buy E-heads. The first two choices allow him to retain the headers he already has while significantly increasing performance. The KRE heads take it one step further by offering potentially more performance than the iron heads at minimally more cost. The choice seems obvious to me. I know a guy just like this. He has a '67 'bird that's running in the upper 12s with bone-stock #16 heads, a Crane cam, Street Dominator intake, Hooker SC headers, a cheap stall converter and 3.73 gears. I bet he'd find a significant performance boost by simply switching to the new KRE heads. Lighter weight, better flow, and for someone in his situation, significantly less cost and hassle than switching to E-heads.

Then I look at my own combination. Mild roller cammed 440 with 275 cfm Iron heads. Hooker SC's (1-3/4" primaries) into a 3" exhaust, with my choice of intakes. When I eventually get some money together again, it'd be nice to make the switch to aluminum heads as I'm primarily concerned with handling and weight distribution in my car. If I can find some power in a more efficient combustion chamber design, and if I don't have to buy another set of headers, then that all looks good to me.

Not all of us are trying to run 9s, and not everyone is going to make full use of the 280 cfm flow potential. So what?


----------------------------
'72 Formula 400
12.77 @ 108 / 234/244 cam / Q-jet / 3840# / 3.23s / street tires (not DRs)
'73 Firebird 400/4-speed

[Goatman]

Couple of thoughts:

Yes, competition is good. Hopefully this head will bring down the E-head prices and we'll all win.

Secondly, why would you buy heads if you're not going to take advantage of their potential out of the box, never mind ported? Why not stick with what you've got?


Thirdly, I personally don't have a problem with aluminum D-ports. I do, however , have a problem with this mis-matched marketing system that is being used. Half race, half street.

"We have a 'street' head that flows out of the box with the E-heads, which you need a 17/8" or 2" header for, but you can buy ours and keep your headers so you feel like you're saving money".


Ummmm, no. That's not making sense to me.

Where's the low lift numbers?

Where's the testing that shows gains against stock D-ports?

Modified D-ports?

E-heads?

Where's the CC of the intake port?

Just seems to be a whole lot of hype about a prouct that seems to be trying to bridge the gap between two worlds that don't want to be bridged.

Right now, no one knows how they're going to perform with small tube headers. We KNOW the E-heads, which supposedly have the same flow charateristics, like the big tube headers.

2+2=..........

Causin' pain like two bad nurses.....

[Brian Baker]

This is not fact, just what I have heard, but the intake port volume is supposedly going to be somewhere around 185cc. E-heads are around 215cc?

If you can get a 185cc port to flow equal to a 215cc port, then I think you know where the low lift numbers are going to be.

[Old Man Taylor]

"..why would you buy heads if you're not going to take advantage of their potential out of the box, never mind ported? Why not stick with what you've got?"

I did not realize it had to be a binary decision. Next time I will have to give a lot of thought to whether I want to keep everything stock, or go the A-Fuel dragster route.

I also do not understand why the criticism starts before there is any hard data. It is easy to claim what new parts won't do without data. However, how can you end up with a "good" new part without having a new implementation that has to go through testing and verification? I have no plans to use these parts, but I think that it is great that they are being done, and I do not believe the world is binary. As long as these heads are not a failure, which I do not believe will be the case, then I am sure they will have at least a niche market. After all, the entire Pontiac market is a niche to begin with.

A footnote - I will have to make sure I get Goatman's approval for my next project to assure that I am not wasting my time. My engine is too small, my headers are too small, I run without a vacuum pump, etc., etc. Oh, but I do have over 200 runs on my mis-directed effort.

http://www.jimspontiac.homestead.com/Index.html

[Brian Baker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Man Taylor:
I did not realize it had to be a binary decision. Next time I will have to give a lot of thought to whether I want to keep everything stock, or go the A-Fuel dragster route.

A footnote - I will have to make sure I get Goatman's approval for my next project to assure that I am not wasting my time. My engine is too small, my headers are too small, I run without a vacuum pump, etc., etc. Oh, but I do have over 200 runs on my mis-directed effort.

http://www.jimspontiac.homestead.com/Index.html

http://kurtsplates.homestead.com/files/jimplate.jpg <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROTFLMAO

[Will]

I hope they're not any bigger than 185cc. My 275cfm iron heads have 170cc ports...

A bigger port would extend my powerband some since I'm not terribly concerned with power below 2500-3000 RPM anyway.

You know, all this criticism seems reminiscent of when the E-heads first started getting popular. Everyone was going "they'll make lousy street heads, ports are too big, blah blah blah." As it turns out, they're not bad for a street head, though they really seem to work well when the performance ante gets upped some.

And what's wrong with a "street/strip" head? Many of us have such dual-purpose cars, and many of us are running iron heads because the E's are a bit much. If these KRE heads had been available 3 years ago when I was building my 440, and if the specs I'm hearing about are accurate and were available then, Id've gone with them instead of sinking a bunch of money into iron heads.


----------------------------
'72 Formula 400
12.77 @ 108 / 234/244 cam / Q-jet / 3840# / 3.23s / street tires (not DRs)
'73 Firebird 400/4-speed

[Stupidnewbie]

I'm coming from the restrictive-budget, want-to-go-fast, still-have-to-drive-it-to-work, one-upgrade-at-a-time perspective. Currently, I wouldn't consider paying over $1600 on E-heads just to replace the valves, springs, clean up the casting, etc. The cost just wouldn't justify the gains. If these D-ports are reasonably priced (as in, significantly lower than E-heads), have better quality-control (which would be expected from KRE and the lower run numbers), and I can swap them in without having to simultaneously replace the headers I would most definetely consider them. Just because my cheapo $89 1 5/8" headers won't let these heads live up to their potential doesnt' make them useless to me.

But hey, that's just the opinion of a poor college kid with a rusty old Firebird.

http://www.shadowdrop.com

[Ron]

Cliff R. You should try a set of round port headers from Doug's Headers. They are not like the headers from the old days. They bolt up easy, thick flanges and don't leak, and will on most applications improve performance.

You do not need 2 inch primary headers with 280 CFM. 2 inch are too big.

Ron