[JSPONT]

subscribed! Nice job!!

[455GRIN]

Looking forward to hearing more. Lots of good Pontiac data gained it sounds like.

Jim, what did the other 6Xs flow? Smaller ports? what number did they make?

thanks

[charlie66]

how many cc did you get out of the runners?

[Formula jg]

This thread just convinced me to retain the 6x on my current setup (250cfm) knowing there is the potential to get another 20-30cfm out of them from the right porter of course.

Is the cam off the shelf or custom grind?

Did you or will you try out a tapered 4-hole 1" spacer? It may help get the idle down under 1000rpm and not hurt the overall power numbers you got.

[Jim Robertson]

No real surprise but the SK made the most power followed very closely by the RPM. Performer Pontiac was a distant last/worst. Did I mention we swapped the 2" headers for a set of Ram Air Restorations RA III manifolds? Will post some numbers in a few...

[PAUL K]

Hurry up, I keep hitting refresh!

[Jim Robertson]

A little more clarification:
I originally ported the heads described in the first post in 2005. Those intake ports are "large" for a 6X. Because this short block was my close friend's, he allowed me to use it for this special manifold shootout. So I ported another set of 6X -8 heads for this effort and installed same part number valves, springs, retainers, locks, and set up dimensions. These flowed 292 cfm and are "smaller" in cross section areas than the 285 cfm. I knew the port cross section would increase velocity and the additional flow was a bonus but could we find the point where more flow did not result in more HP. Was there a sweet spot in our old iron that resulted in better TQ and HP? We went to great lengths and expense (time and money) to minimize variables. The results below are with the 292 cfm heads.

Peaks
Performer RPM - TQ 609.4 and HP 587.9
SK - TQ 611.1 and HP 598.7
Offy 360 - TQ 586.9 and HP 586.4
Stock Torker II (port match to vintage 503 only) - TQ 602.2 and HP 592.4
Ported OEM iron with Hamburger adapter to 4150 - TQ 593.1 and HP 583.1

I want to send a special thanks to my team of dyno junkies for your can-do attitude, for your abilities to move quickly through the wrenching chores and for the comradery as we whipped on these old pieces of Detroit wonder metal.

Don't trade your ole D-ports off just yet...

Iron D-ports still rock!

[Dragncar]

Thanks for the results. Years ago I did some back to back "poor mans" drag strip testing with stockish 96s. Warrior was best then RPM, T2 then T1.
I have a 4150 P4B, has large runners so it looks interesting. Anyone want to try it let me know.
I have a Tomahawk with a little work done and it runs very close to the Warrior. Have a Northwind on the way, should be interesting too. Dan Whittmore always said the Warrior was very good dispute what some said.

[Jack Gifford]

Jim- do you know how two fours on a Nash tunnel-ram would compare with those [impressive!] single-four numbers? Or would the rest of the combo not be optimum for two fours?

[Dragncar]

I kick myself for not buying one of those Warrior 2x4 intakes when I bought mine. They were only like 480 $
Kick myself for not buying a Thompson .45 cal too when you could get them.

[Jim Robertson]

Hello Jack, Never had a Nash designed 2x4 intake to study, flow or dyno test. However, if I did try one on this combo and if the 2 x 4 Nash design did not produce a broader torque curve than the single 4 (with maybe a few more horses) then I would need to investigate closely why not.

charlie66 I did not measure the intake volumes on either set. Instead I was chasing a particular shape at various points along the port.

Formulajg We did not test carb spacer shapes/sizes but I am convinced there is some tq and hp with various designs. Our focus for this effort was heads and intake manifolds.

[potentpontiac]

Jim. Very Impressive #'S. Thought you might have tried a Holley SD Intake. I just did a build for a 71 Formula 455 Bird. I like the straight shot and tall narrow runner. This is however a fairly mild street application. Cam lift at 510 gross.

[Skip Fix]

Jim I have a Warrior 2-4 if you ever get a wild hair to test it-even some fresh 4224s for it.

[Gary H]

Thanks so much for the great information! I guess the biggest surprise for me was that the factory iron intake did so well with the 4150 adapter. I would have thought it would kill the flow because of the transition from one to the other. Good info also on the RPM versus Torker II. I would have thought the Torker II would have been right there horsepower wise but give up some torque and average power numbers. Looks like it didn't equal the RPM on either.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Gary H

I would have thought the Torker II would have been right there horsepower wise but give up some torque and average power numbers. Looks like it didn't equal the RPM on either.

Am i reading Jim's post wrong, looks to me like the T2 made 5 more hp and 7tq less than the RPM?

[Dragncar]

If you want well ported iron head combos to run, get a Warrior.
People forget Aces old second gen Bird. 400, E heads ported by SD to flow only around 290cfm, 9.30s with a modified Warrior done by Gabby at Wilson. How many people have made 535s only to run 9.30s in "like cars".

[Gary H]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Am i reading Jim's post wrong, looks to me like the T2 made 5 more hp and 7tq less than the RPM?

Yep, your right, I reversed the hp and torque numbers. Still, surprised they were essentially even. Cast iron intake and adapter. Who would of thought it would even be in the ball park numbers wise.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by Gary H

. Cast iron intake and adapter. Who would of thought it would even be in the ball park numbers wise.

I believe he said the iron manifold was ported, if the plenum was opened up the adapter would act like a tapered spacer to a degree... if the plenum still had the four holes and the spacer was open, I'm as suprised as you.

[Jim Robertson]

Yes the iron intake was ported in the plenum so I could run the same carb for all the tests. Just trying to minimize the variables so we could more accurately compare. Yes that intake responded nicely and was a great surprise. 593 lb-ft of torque with 9.3:1 is very impressive. We really like the potential of that one. And the SK's performance provide even more evidence that that particular design was ahead of its time 40+ years ago. Dang.

[PAUL K]

Jim did you use a 4500 or 4150 SK? Any spacer or adapter on the Warrior manifold? IMO it's the coolest looking manifold by far. My brother's 464 runs high nines with one and weighs over 3700 lbs.