[Jeff Kinsler]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

Jeff,

I bet our 4000lbs, 2-4bbl, 4 speed 1959 Catalina will run in the 8's out east in November, oh yea, it has those old E-heads that seem to run so well in those conditions!

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance
708-250-7420

i hope it does!!!
why dont you make it decemer??? you dont have good air in november where you live? where do you live hawaii? i have a room waiting for all of you guys that im faster than now and still will be faster than when you guys come over to the east coast!!!

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Jeff Kinsler

i hope it does!!!
why dont you make it decemer??? you dont have good air in november where you live? where do you live hawaii? i have a room waiting for all of you guys that im faster than now and still will be faster than when you guys come over to the east coast!!!

So where's my room? You'll have a nice view of my taillights all weekend

[Jeff Kinsler]

Originally Posted by slowbird

So where's my room? You'll have a nice view of my taillights all weekend

LOL. probably will!!

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by R 70 Judge

I think the "tearing apart" is coming from comparisons between "as cast" CV1's and "as cast" E-heads. The "as cast" CV1 has a much larger intake valve and a larger CSA (3.2" as cast) than a standard E-head with its 2.11" intake and 1.66" exhaust valves. The E-head flows maybe 290cfm as cast, the CV1 flows 380+cfm. It SHOULD kick the **** out of a standard E-head. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CV1 also has a larger intake valve and CSA than most versions of the wideport E-head out there. Comparing the "as cast" CV1 to a wideport would be a better "apples to apples" comparison in my opinion.

Also, that 505ci nitrous engine that was built for the Mustang seemed pretty max effort to me. I don't know what else could have been done to get more power out of it. You are catching flak over that one because the engine dyno'ed at 978hp and only showed around 700hp on the track on the motor (9.90@148 at 2900lbs). I know the converter and gearing wasn't optimal, but that is a pretty large discrepancy. That is where the "happy dyno" comments are coming from since Mike Leech dyno'ed his engine at the same place. His car is showing the potential to back up the dyno results.

How's that work? Same dyno as Mike? Seems to jive ok on Mikes car but only "happy" with the CV results?(witnessed by Tom V iirc) You are kidding right?

Bryans track results? Does a real street racer ever show all he has?? Not anywhere I've ever been... kind of hard to make a buck if you go showin your hand isnt it?

AND NO it is NOT max effort. No one tried different cams or even header tuning, carb spacers etc.. Certainly isnt cammed to do well NA, I got the specs from him. And ET or 60 ft well with an N2O speced convertor while running NA, are you serious?
Go ahead, set up for a 400+ hit then go run NA and tell me how you do?

BTW I didnt see anyone offering to shed weight to race him...everyone wanted him to come up to their weight. Why was that?? Should be fair either way right?

Just trying to clear a few things up to put an end to this nonsense. I'm not one to sugarcoat ****, so sorry if it offends in any way. I don't mean it that way.

The new "re-tool port" CV1 seems very promising. Going off the flow numbers for the valve size it appears to be the best aftermarket Pontiac head I've seen to date. I'm really looking forward to seeing what they do. That head on a 434"'ish engine in a 2925lb car should be enough to win the Norwalk heads up race pretty easily IMO.

Actually the original cv1's are a fine cylinder head...there is no magic bullet that works in every gun... cylinder heads are no different.
People were looking for an affordable, high quality, 400 cfm+ capable head that didnt require expensive shaft rockers to get there. Any engine build the valve covers and intake cost someone somewhere along the way the new price not leftover bargain find. Ironically many builds just dont need the capability and some that do dont know what to do with it. I think we have ALL learned at least a little something about cylinder heads with these arguments though. (not neccessarily technical knowledge only)

Over time most anything gets revised and updated. Unlike Edelbrock who never offered us any significant revision other than the bolt change and giving Butler more porting room. Edelbrock just continued to offer the same ports/valvejob/low buck springs/etc.. and let us eat all the development and upgrade costs. 20 years they finally release a D-port and a do it yourself PP head that should have been released about 10 years ago. That was nice of them.

20 years with lots of people working with them they should be working good. Wonder what the development hours add up to?? Lots I'm sure. How much came from Edelbrock?

Yet you guys have the gall to criticize the CV heads?? And most criticism from people who never laid hands on them or actually used them? By the way how good was the economy the 1st 16 years of Edelbrock heads vs the last 4 or 5 years? CV has been around how long?

Funny that some guy in his shop can not only offer a very high quality casting that works well, and is priced fairly too! AND within a few years is re-tooling and adding improvements.

Yeah the re-tool head is nice... very very nice. Few will understand, care, or appreciate what has been acheived in the development process of these heads. I cant tell you just yet. It's not yet been seen on any Pontiac head. (Clue...it aint exactly a cfm number but its related. And we want it)

Yep the CV's are being revised... just like Air Research, Brodix, Dart, TrickFlow etc., etc... have done for years and continue to do. Edelbrock too but only if you have a Chevy or Ford.

But Edelbrock is sacred, how dare we ask THEM to give us something better! Thats supposed to be left for us lowly Pontiac guys to improve them!!! We dare ask for more from big E? We want them to get Pontiac on their hands??? Shame on us.

And here we are with people defending the sacred cow instead. Amazing!

Honestly I dont blame them for staying away. I got a feeling they dont want to go thru the same bs all over again like the CV is wading thru now. Was a time the E wasnt proven to be any better than the iron it replaced. Lots of BS then too, but internet was just being invented.

BTW, anyone ever wonder how a set of full on wideports would work with a low rise single plane and a .684 lift hyd roller cam(322/326 adv duration) in a 3400+ lb car running a glide, and 3.73 gears???

Any bets it wouldnt be quicker with smaller port E-heads that flow 60 or so cfm less??

Any bets a solid roller with much less adv duration but say .784 lift would work better with the wideports?

And some of you compare cv results with same hydraulic cam to the smaller non wideport heads??? Wow, I always thought you chose your cam to match your heads capabilities not chose your heads to your cams capabilities. Guess there is more than one way to do things!

The lead cv detractor had a freebie set of cv's under his pillow... if he was smart he might have got us all to chip in a few bucks so he could do a head swap from his wideports and show us all the difference. Well he sold off the freebies instead and bashed them while doing so... yet I see many of you regurgitating the same line of negative or uninformed BS as him.
Is it still the early 90's??

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

I really don't car what the mph is on my junk. It is easier for a lighter car to pull more MPH though.

I'm glad you are catching on to the CVWhat montra.

You are heavier than Robins car??

You dont care about your mph? Yet you judge others by mph and weight?

Do try to remember to tell us when you do exceed 174 in your car under its own power.

We'll guess your weight though! OK?

[john marcella]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

How's that work? Same dyno as Mike? Seems to jive ok on Mikes car but only "happy" with the CV results?(witnessed by Tom V iirc) You are kidding right?

Bryans track results? Does a real street racer ever show all he has?? Not anywhere I've ever been... kind of hard to make a buck if you go showin your hand isnt it?

AND NO it is NOT max effort. No one tried different cams or even header tuning, carb spacers etc.. Certainly isnt cammed to do well NA, I got the specs from him. And ET or 60 ft well with an N2O speced convertor while running NA, are you serious?
Go ahead, set up for a 400+ hit then go run NA and tell me how you do?

BTW I didnt see anyone offering to shed weight to race him...everyone wanted him to come up to their weight. Why was that?? Should be fair either way right?



Actually the original cv1's are a fine cylinder head...there is no magic bullet that works in every gun... cylinder heads are no different.
People were looking for an affordable, high quality, 400 cfm+ capable head that didnt require expensive shaft rockers to get there. Any engine build the valve covers and intake cost someone somewhere along the way the new price not leftover bargain find. Ironically many builds just dont need the capability and some that do dont know what to do with it. I think we have ALL learned at least a little something about cylinder heads with these arguments though. (not neccessarily technical knowledge only)

Over time most anything gets revised and updated. Unlike Edelbrock who never offered us any significant revision other than the bolt change and giving Butler more porting room. Edelbrock just continued to offer the same ports/valvejob/low buck springs/etc.. and let us eat all the development and upgrade costs. 20 years they finally release a D-port and a do it yourself PP head that should have been released about 10 years ago. That was nice of them.

20 years with lots of people working with them they should be working good. Wonder what the development hours add up to?? Lots I'm sure. How much came from Edelbrock?

Yet you guys have the gall to criticize the CV heads?? And most criticism from people who never laid hands on them or actually used them? By the way how good was the economy the 1st 16 years of Edelbrock heads vs the last 4 or 5 years? CV has been around how long?

Funny that some guy in his shop can not only offer a very high quality casting that works well, and is priced fairly too! AND within a few years is re-tooling and adding improvements.

Yeah the re-tool head is nice... very very nice. Few will understand, care, or appreciate what has been acheived in the development process of these heads. I cant tell you just yet. It's not yet been seen on any Pontiac head. (Clue...it aint exactly a cfm number but its related. And we want it)

Yep the CV's are being revised... just like Air Research, Brodix, Dart, TrickFlow etc., etc... have done for years and continue to do. Edelbrock too but only if you have a Chevy or Ford.

But Edelbrock is sacred, how dare we ask THEM to give us something better! Thats supposed to be left for us lowly Pontiac guys to improve them!!! We dare ask for more from big E? We want them to get Pontiac on their hands??? Shame on us.

And here we are with people defending the sacred cow instead. Amazing!

Honestly I dont blame them for staying away. I got a feeling they dont want to go thru the same bs all over again like the CV is wading thru now. Was a time the E wasnt proven to be any better than the iron it replaced. Lots of BS then too, but internet was just being invented.

BTW, anyone ever wonder how a set of full on wideports would work with a low rise single plane and a .684 lift hyd roller cam(322/326 adv duration) in a 3400+ lb car running a glide, and 3.73 gears???

Any bets it wouldnt be quicker with smaller port E-heads that flow 60 or so cfm less??

Any bets a solid roller with much less adv duration but say .784 lift would work better with the wideports?

And some of you compare cv results with same hydraulic cam to the smaller non wideport heads??? Wow, I always thought you chose your cam to match your heads capabilities not chose your heads to your cams capabilities. Guess there is more than one way to do things!

The lead cv detractor had a freebie set of cv's under his pillow... if he was smart he might have got us all to chip in a few bucks so he could do a head swap from his wideports and show us all the difference. Well he sold off the freebies instead and bashed them while doing so... yet I see many of you regurgitating the same line of negative or uninformed BS as him.
Is it still the early 90's??

Holy crap, how long did that take you. I couldn't even read it -ADD kicked in.LOL

If he used the same cam he had for sale , its within 1# from the cam i just had ground for my NA motor, if i remember correctly.

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

You are heavier than Robins car??

You dont care about your mph? Yet you judge others by mph and weight?

Do try to remember to tell us when you do exceed 174 in your car under its own power.

We'll guess your weight though! OK?

I am 3460#, if you like after I make a pass at Norwalk just meet me at the scales, I have nothing to lie about.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

So Bruce, what are you trying to say? That the CV-1 head for pump gas street use will run the same as the E-head if you run a bigger cam and twist 1200 more rpm to keep the velocity up on the shifts. Then I don't see the advantage?
Or explain it to me.

[johnta1]

RPM X Torque / 5252 = Horsepower

[Tom McQueen]

Wrong crowd for math John.

[bryansMtngto]

Hate to say it threads like this Dont do anyone any good. If a Cv car shows up great. If it dont, it dont. Guys are still going to race for bragging rights. Does it really matter whos heads are on a car when its racing? Dont think so. Its all Pontiac stuff. Thats all that should matter.

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by bryansMtngto

Hate to say it threads like this Dont do anyone any good. If a Cv car shows up great. If it dont, it dont. Guys are still going to race for bragging rights. Does it really matter whos heads are on a car when its racing? Dont think so. Its all Pontiac stuff. Thats all that should matter.

After 4/5 years of forum racing, it isn't that it's a Pontiac head for all............ I think it's boiling down to...




1: Which head can make the most HP N/A.

2: Then, which head can make the most HP per dollar spent with same parts.

3: Then, which 'claiming the best flow characteristics' can keep up with another head with the same or more or less 'flow characteristics'?


**That's the E-head, Tiger, KRE HP & CV-1 debate.**

Everyone has their choice. It's the heavy hitters that want the best bang. No hype, no bullsh*t, no trash. Just track results.
or we would all be running factory D-ports. LOL.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

So Bruce, what are you trying to say? That the CV-1 head for pump gas street use will run the same as the E-head if you run a bigger cam and twist 1200 more rpm to keep the velocity up on the shifts. Then I don't see the advantage?
Or explain it to me.

Early in my novel above I said

I think we have ALL learned at least a little something about cylinder heads with these arguments though. (not neccessarily technical knowledge only)

Didnt we find out that the CV1 wasnt a dog there but not as well suited for the application as your smaller port heads? After that deal would you do the same thing with wideports and expect them to beat your smaller ports?

[R 70 Judge]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

How's that work? Same dyno as Mike? Seems to jive ok on Mikes car but only "happy" with the CV results?(witnessed by Tom V iirc) You are kidding right?

Bryans track results? Does a real street racer ever show all he has?? Not anywhere I've ever been... kind of hard to make a buck if you go showin your hand isnt it?

AND NO it is NOT max effort. No one tried different cams or even header tuning, carb spacers etc.. Certainly isnt cammed to do well NA, I got the specs from him. And ET or 60 ft well with an N2O speced convertor while running NA, are you serious?
Go ahead, set up for a 400+ hit then go run NA and tell me how you do?

BTW I didnt see anyone offering to shed weight to race him...everyone wanted him to come up to their weight. Why was that?? Should be fair either way right?



Actually the original cv1's are a fine cylinder head...there is no magic bullet that works in every gun... cylinder heads are no different.
People were looking for an affordable, high quality, 400 cfm+ capable head that didnt require expensive shaft rockers to get there. Any engine build the valve covers and intake cost someone somewhere along the way the new price not leftover bargain find. Ironically many builds just dont need the capability and some that do dont know what to do with it. I think we have ALL learned at least a little something about cylinder heads with these arguments though. (not neccessarily technical knowledge only)

Over time most anything gets revised and updated. Unlike Edelbrock who never offered us any significant revision other than the bolt change and giving Butler more porting room. Edelbrock just continued to offer the same ports/valvejob/low buck springs/etc.. and let us eat all the development and upgrade costs. 20 years they finally release a D-port and a do it yourself PP head that should have been released about 10 years ago. That was nice of them.

20 years with lots of people working with them they should be working good. Wonder what the development hours add up to?? Lots I'm sure. How much came from Edelbrock?

Yet you guys have the gall to criticize the CV heads?? And most criticism from people who never laid hands on them or actually used them? By the way how good was the economy the 1st 16 years of Edelbrock heads vs the last 4 or 5 years? CV has been around how long?

Funny that some guy in his shop can not only offer a very high quality casting that works well, and is priced fairly too! AND within a few years is re-tooling and adding improvements.

Yeah the re-tool head is nice... very very nice. Few will understand, care, or appreciate what has been acheived in the development process of these heads. I cant tell you just yet. It's not yet been seen on any Pontiac head. (Clue...it aint exactly a cfm number but its related. And we want it)

Yep the CV's are being revised... just like Air Research, Brodix, Dart, TrickFlow etc., etc... have done for years and continue to do. Edelbrock too but only if you have a Chevy or Ford.

But Edelbrock is sacred, how dare we ask THEM to give us something better! Thats supposed to be left for us lowly Pontiac guys to improve them!!! We dare ask for more from big E? We want them to get Pontiac on their hands??? Shame on us.

And here we are with people defending the sacred cow instead. Amazing!

Honestly I dont blame them for staying away. I got a feeling they dont want to go thru the same bs all over again like the CV is wading thru now. Was a time the E wasnt proven to be any better than the iron it replaced. Lots of BS then too, but internet was just being invented.

BTW, anyone ever wonder how a set of full on wideports would work with a low rise single plane and a .684 lift hyd roller cam(322/326 adv duration) in a 3400+ lb car running a glide, and 3.73 gears???

Any bets it wouldnt be quicker with smaller port E-heads that flow 60 or so cfm less??

Any bets a solid roller with much less adv duration but say .784 lift would work better with the wideports?

And some of you compare cv results with same hydraulic cam to the smaller non wideport heads??? Wow, I always thought you chose your cam to match your heads capabilities not chose your heads to your cams capabilities. Guess there is more than one way to do things!

The lead cv detractor had a freebie set of cv's under his pillow... if he was smart he might have got us all to chip in a few bucks so he could do a head swap from his wideports and show us all the difference. Well he sold off the freebies instead and bashed them while doing so... yet I see many of you regurgitating the same line of negative or uninformed BS as him.
Is it still the early 90's??

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Early in my novel above I said

Didnt we find out that the CV1 wasnt a dog there but not as well suited for the application as your smaller port heads? After that deal would you do the same thing with wideports and expect them to beat your smaller ports?

I think a set of wide ports would attain the same results as my std port head........... as long as the velocity was still there in the mid numbers with my old cam design.

I had a set of Ondo wideport heads. The std port SD heads actually flowed the same or more depending on lower lift at the same .600 and below as my current heads. Only after .650 to .800 did they pick up into the 370 range.

You have to remember that the CV-1 original head was supposed to be a STREET performance head to compete with the E-head. Whether std or wide port.
How many PUMP GAS street/strip combos have to twist 7600 rpm and have a cam with 280 degrees of duration to make pump gas power ?????????????
Well I can tell you that the street part with my new cam is no longer there. LOL

It was only after the actual track testing that certain things came to light and everything changed as to the intent of the head and other head port development is being done.

Did my car pick up going from 308 cfm mild ported E-heads to CV-1 368 cfm out of the box........... YES

Did my car run as good as a set of SD 340 cfm std port location ported E-heads .... No

Cost................ the same.

Bruce, not trying to stir sh*t, but you could actually feel the power in the shift after the rpm dropped & picked up. "Seat of the pants after lots and lots of CV-1 passes well into the 100 range. That is where the difference came into play. That's why peak flow doesn't hold the water as it used to. I would give up PEAK cfm any day to have more where my car lays down on the shift and needs the numbers with velocity to get it back in the curve.

Like I stated. The CV-1's just didn't have the right velocity in the 5500 to 7000 rpm range compared to the std port 340cfm E-head. No biggie now. People can choose whatever product they want.
If I didn't have to go thru a lot of changes to use em, I would go the Tiger head and pump gas.

But I have installed a 280/288 with .740 lift cam. (Previously 262/266 w/6.50 lift)
I will see how different these limited flow 340 cfm std port heads will work.
Paper wise.......... The peak rpm range has moved from 6200 to 6800 with my combo. I will chassis dyno it when I get a chance to see what it wants.

[bryansMtngto]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

After 4/5 years of forum racing, it isn't that it's a Pontiac head for all............ I think it's boiling down to...




1: Which head can make the most HP N/A.

2: Then, which head can make the most HP per dollar spent with same parts.

3: Then, which 'claiming the best flow characteristics' can keep up with another head with the same or more or less 'flow characteristics'?


**That's the E-head, Tiger, KRE HP & CV-1 debate.**

Everyone has their choice. It's the heavy hitters that want the best bang. No hype, no bullsh*t, no trash. Just track results.
or we would all be running factory D-ports. LOL.

I dont have a prob. Following any of that. It seems that these threads start out pretty good with debates about issues and such. But come on They all seem to end up getting personal, instead of staying technical. I was going to stay out of it, this same BS happens on another forum all the time too, Just Let the Track prove IT, anyone can build any combo, but til its proven by an ET slip IMO Its only worth mentioning. Just think the attitudes need to be kept out of it. If its Pontiac powered we should be supporting it. The more suppliers we have making parts Even if its street head the better we are all OFF.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

I think a set of wide ports would attain the same results as my std port head........... as long as the velocity was still there in the mid numbers with my old cam design.

I had a set of Ondo wideport heads. The std port SD heads actually flowed the same or more depending on lower lift at the same .600 and below as my current heads. Only after .650 to .800 did they pick up into the 370 range.

You have to remember that the CV-1 original head was supposed to be a STREET performance head to compete with the E-head. Whether std or wide port.
How many PUMP GAS street/strip combos have to twist 7600 rpm and have a cam with 280 degrees of duration to make pump gas power ?????????????
Well I can tell you that the street part with my new cam is no longer there. LOL

It was only after the actual track testing that certain things came to light and everything changed as to the intent of the head and other head port development is being done.

Did my car pick up going from 308 cfm mild ported E-heads to CV-1 368 cfm out of the box........... YES

Did my car run as good as a set of SD 340 cfm std port location ported E-heads .... No

Cost................ the same.

Bruce, not trying to stir sh*t, but you could actually feel the power in the shift after the rpm dropped & picked up. "Seat of the pants after lots and lots of CV-1 passes well into the 100 range. That is where the difference came into play. That's why peak flow doesn't hold the water as it used to. I would give up PEAK cfm any day to have more where my car lays down on the shift and needs the numbers with velocity to get it back in the curve.

Like I stated. The CV-1's just didn't have the right velocity in the 5500 to 7000 rpm range compared to the std port 340cfm E-head. No biggie now. People can choose whatever product they want.
If I didn't have to go thru a lot of changes to use em, I would go the Tiger head and pump gas.

But I have installed a 280/288 with .740 lift cam. (Previously 262/266 w/6.50 lift)
I will see how different these limited flow 340 cfm std port heads will work.
Paper wise.......... The peak rpm range has moved from 6200 to 6800 with my combo. I will chassis dyno it when I get a chance to see what it wants.

Ken what you state there isnt sh!+ stirring. Your weight, your gearing and powerglide along with the hyd roller you were running with, its no mystery to me that shift recovery was better with the 340 head. Still think you could get close to same results over same powerband with a different profile solid roller and the CV1's. IMO the cv did ok and left room to grow for a more race oriented package. Charlie poked you bad.

The original cv1 came about because some were looking for an affordable alternative to a wideport. A head that didnt need shaft rockers yet was capable of 400+ cfm with little to no effort. IMO it fits that request... Personally just like many others it would be nice to see a direct on dyno then on track comparison to a wideport. With both in the 400 cfm range I think results would be close if manifolding is similar. I wouldnt bet which one made more power. I think it would be close either way. I do however think for the money the CV1 will be the better value.

Ken... maybe somone builds a combo like yours but cv235 port... I think it would be an honest comparison then. (cv235 does 343 cfm at .700 with great numbers below that and very good flow qualities)
Your pal could have done a fair compare of std casting cv1's to his wide ports but chose to do what he does best instead.

And the part that I really dont like... people making comparisons that arent really valid comparisons. The "I havent seen it do any better than..." comments that get posted seldom directly compare ALL the differences. Quite a few guys run tigers they dont do as well as Langer or Rex but everything gets compared against Langer/Rex results and we seldom hear of the other guys results running them.
Kinslers pkg has been in refinement for how many years now? Keeps improving, cant knock that! But too many people come across like anyone with E-heads can accomplish his acheivements with ease and in a short time frame... it just dont work that way. It wont likely work that way with any other head choice either.

So why are there people expecting any cv combo to not need refinement beyond the heads to get improved results?

BTW Ken, I could be mistaken, but Mystics cv1 505 and @ 10.5 compression 3500+ lb pump gas street car has gone better than 9.80 without the bottle on. 9.6's maybe? Car does see some street use. Nothing fancy/expensive done with those heads. There is more in it. Think I'd of speced the cam a bit different if I knew compression was going to end up lower than expected and only using small amounts of N2O. All said it does ok though. Yeah higher rpm motor... nothing to be afraid of though... it aint the old days. Big Chev and Ford street/strip cars go there too.

[bankbook]

Originally Posted by bryansMtngto

I dont have a prob. Following any of that. It seems that these threads start out pretty good with debates about issues and such. But come on They all seem to end up getting personal, instead of staying technical. I was going to stay out of it, this same BS happens on another forum all the time too, Just Let the Track prove IT, anyone can build any combo, but til its proven by an ET slip IMO Its only worth mentioning. Just think the attitudes need to be kept out of it. If its Pontiac powered we should be supporting it. The more suppliers we have making parts Even if its street head the better we are all OFF.

[7T2]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

You have to remember that the CV-1 original head was supposed to be a STREET performance head to compete with the E-head.

90% of CV-1 applications ARE street performance. you have no data on my customers or their usage of my products, so your continual claim of it not being street head is only YOUR OPINION only.

this is just like the last bogus claim of yours ..'most cv-1 users have shaft rockers.' again absolutely not true- 75% of my users have roller rockers.

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

How many PUMP GAS street/strip combos have to twist 7600 rpm and have a cam with 280 degrees of duration to make pump gas power ?????????????

again, more negative hype bs
most cv-1 street users run 10" convertors, and shift in the 6500-7000 range. as stated before, your results are yours only. they are definitely NOT typical. hill perf's 535 pump gas motor made 813hp with a cam in the 260's @ .050'...

http://forums.maxperformanceinc.com/...highlight=dyno

that engine peaked at 6800 rpm, and uses a 10" convertor in an all steel STREET driven '66 GTO.
misrepresenting another business' products is NOT a 'good businessman' virtue... IMO
youre entitled to your opinion, but you would be wise to preface your statements as such in the future

[blaktopr]

Any track times???