[dci]

Nice work Calvin!!! It appears though that my fears are confirmed with the roof of the port being to thin. It looks like in the one picture of the port, I see were the spring seat poked through. I left the port I'm playing with a little on the conservative side for that reason. I think if Edelbrock would have moved that spring pocket up just another .100 we porters would be allot happier. If Edelbrock is concerned with valve weight, they shouldn't be. With titanium 8 mm valve stem valves. The valve should be plenty light enough for rpm's up to 9,000 +.

Bruce your spark plug location worries are indeed a major concern. The plug location is not optimum and can lead to detonation. As Tom V. stated as well, there is probably going to be an issue with cracking in this area. It is thin there and with the heat build up in this area may end up being a major issue. I guess we won't know that until someone gets a set on an engine and beats on them.

So with this all being said, to make these heads work without issues. It looks like welding will be necessary as well as additional machining before welding and after.
I hope all of our hypothesis are unfounded!!!


Don Johnston
DCI MOTORSPORTS INC.
330-628-3354 cell
330-850-5050 shop
Designer of the DCI Tiger Heads and the NEW DCI Ram Air V Heads !!!!

[cgeise]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

I'm actually offended by this comment. First off, we have a port that is pretty decent, but it doesn't exceed my CV-1 head, KRE HP's I've worked or the Tiger head coming from AP. I also had a new set of 12.6's for sale almost a year ago, no takers here on this board when at the time, no one else could get them. As far as the amount of time we have in this port, it would cost well over $5K to cover the hours spent in development and we don't have the port digitized for CNC yet.

We should be able to post final flow data and final pricing by the end of next week, at this point we have a head flowing:

216 cfm @.300
347 cfm @.500
441 cfm @.700

Thanks.

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

Calvin - there was no offense intended - but I stand by my comment that on this thread and the other about the 11 degree head it seemed that there was a lot of resistance to start the development process and now there are a number of guys working on it. with a 12.6 and an 11 degree head being offered I can see why there would be little interest in the 12.6 -- We have all been there - as soon as you lay down the money for them you find out the 11 degeee is much better -- jmo. I was wondering if you would clarify your statement above - are you saying all the heads you listed have better numbers than the flow numbers you just listed ???

[BruceWilkie]

Strictly technical and somwhat managerial....

??? is the 11 deg head mold simply an angle milled version of the 12.6 casting mold??? Have there been casting changes since the early castings???

Perhaps now that you porters have found things that maybe Edelbrock should have noticed, and done a better job with, maybe you should collectively consider having them correct the castings before trying to move further. After all, you guys are eating their R+D costs till someone buys. JMO

If they come back and say "we built it exactly as you asked", then who gave the specs?
I think you guys arent at fault here!

Potentially great product here if refined.

[Daniel Barton]

Originally Posted by 7T2

i concur with the ford engineer-
adequate plug cooling requires careful consideration of surrounding liquid and solid thermal conductivity coefficients for proper cooling. per suggestion, arbitrary plug placement wont cut it in most castings, although SOME latitude of placement can be gained from proper thin wall design around said areas for air cooling. at best, it is a compromise.

jim

Yes Jim, thats how we did it... we just threw the head in the bridgeport and wherever it landed that was where the plug bore went, our process was extremely arbitrary, more like a game of pin the tail on the donkey... all it was capable of was setting the national record in its competition eliminator class, doing well at the divisional level, winning a national event and running .72 under the index... I guess even a blind squirrel gets a nut every once in a while huh???? Nice try!

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Gach

It's going to be very interesting to see what Gaby's Labiosa opinion is, When he's done with his R&D on the Pro Port head. seeing what he was able to acomplish with the RPM head with track results to back it up. We all know what Jeff Kinslers RPM heads have proven. There's seems to be a lot of creative doubt about the spark placement issue. Besides the five known port development guys, there is three others not listed here, who are working on the R&D of the Pro Port head. There's some chuckling going on about the supposedly spark plug placement issue.

If you truly understood how serious preignition is you wouldnt be chuckling! Do YOU want to layout that kind of $$$$$ knowing you might be taking a chance? Want someone to chuckle with your money???

Isnt it better to get things corrected before proceeding further?

Dont care who designed this head, ports it or whatever, if you can avoid a risk why take it???
View it in another way... what benefit is having the plug and tip so close to the exhaust valve seat??? If there is a benefit, does it outweigh the risk?

Knowlegible people have concerns. Including people involved in cylinder head design.

Yes some concerned have competing product to sell. Would you rather have them sit back and chuckle when someone nukes a motor to a preignition event?

This aint detonation your playing with. Diesels detonate all day long, they arent likely to live through a preignition event let alone a race motor.

I think most of us in the Pontiac community care far more about fellow Pontiac'rs and Pontiacs first more so than Edelbrock or products from Edelbrocks competitors within our own community.

The problem finders arent calling our newborn ugly. They're telling us it has a few birth defects!

Quit with the political view crap. If theres a technical issue that can be addressed BEFORE a product gets released lets get it resolved or other means to move forward.

This shouldnt be a "whip it out" contest!

And as far as something has been done and gotten away with successfully goes, it doesnt gaurantee you will the next time.

[slowbird]

Jim and Calvin could you both measure from the deck to the valve cover rail. Wondering if the 11° is taller than the 12° and by how much.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

If you truly understood how serious preignition is you wouldnt be chuckling! Do YOU want to layout that kind of $$$$$ knowing you might be taking a chance? Want someone to chuckle with your money???

Isnt it better to get things corrected before proceeding further?

Dont care who designed this head, ports it or whatever, if you can avoid a risk why take it???
View it in another way... what benefit is having the plug and tip so close to the valve seat??? If there is a benefit, does it outweigh the risk?

Knowlegible people have concerns. Including people involved in cylinder head design.

Yes some concerned have competing product to sell. Would you rather have them sit back and chuckle when someone nukes a motor to a preignition event?

This aint detonation your playing with. Diesels detonate all day long, they wont live through a preignition event let alone a race motor.

I think most of us in the Pontiac community care far more about fellow Pontiac'rs and Pontiacs first more so than Edelbrock or products from Edelbrocks competitors within our own community.

The problem finders arent calling our newborn ugly. They're telling us it has a few birth defects!

Quit with the political view crap. If theres a technical issue that can be addressed BEFORE a product gets released lets get it resolved or other means to move forward.

Heck if its that serious I suggest no one develop the head or run it, as it will just destroy the engine.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Heck if its that serious I suggest no one develop the head or run it, as it will just destroy the engine.

Why should our porters and builders stick their neck out for Edelbrock? Do it better and its a win/win for all involved.

[cgeise]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Jim and Calvin could you both measure from the deck to the valve cover rail. Wondering if the 11° is taller than the 12° and by how much.

Even better - deck to top of port opening

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Why should our porters and builders stick their neck out for Edelbrock? Do it better and its a win/win for all involved.

You are right Bruce no one should work with this casting until the issue you believe are there are resolved.

[cfmcnc]

Would not be the first time the engine builders and head porters did the final R&D on a product.Bill C.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by cfmcnc

Would not be the first time the engine builders and head porters did the final R&D on a product.Bill C.

Production equipment often gets that way. Sales types tend to push things out the door before engineering feels its ready. Once released the techs own it.

[slowbird]

No company that I know of does its own r&d. The cv1 r&d is being done by others, Bill is doing a lot of it for AllPontiac I believe. KRE might be the only one that r&d their stuff first since they make a billet head first and run it then they cast it.
Do you expect edelbrock to built a Pontiac to test this head on? Do you think Edelbrock has built an engine for all the other makes to test their proports on?

[bryansMtngto]

Edelbrock didnt do the R&D on their performers either they work some deals with racers and builders and took data from them to make some changes from the original castings. Hoping they will do the same with the pro ports if there are any proven problems. As of right now, Since I dont know of anyone that is running a set on an Engine its speculation. Just hope that the issues mentioned previously dont come back and bite someone. Really sucks to loose a motor for any racer.

[slowbird]

Just to add more technical data to this thread, Edelbrock says a 2.35in 1.72ex valve can be used. Will thats not happening with the 2.040 valve spacing that it comes with unless you only want .005 clearance between the valves. You could probably run a 2.330in 1.700ex with the supplied valve spacing.

[slowbird]

One other tech note, it appears there is about .200 clearance between the intake valve and the cylinder wall with a 2.300 valve and 4.350 bore. The intake valve appears to be in a pretty good location for producing good flow numbers, which is backed up by Calvin getting 440+cfm at .700 lift out of his head.

[Jim Robertson]

Some progress...

Left mold is a BBC Brodix CNC flowing 525 cfm; Right mold is a 18degree Small block by Weldtech that flowed 365.

[john marcella]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Just to add more technical data to this thread, Edelbrock says a 2.35in 1.72ex valve can be used. Will thats not happening with the 2.040 valve spacing that it comes with unless you only want .005 clearance between the valves. You could probably run a 2.330in 1.700ex with the supplied valve spacing.

Offset bore the guide holes. CV products sells blank guides with the ID and guide top done but not the OD. Move that stuff were you need it.

[cgeise]

Has anyone confirmed the fact that the 11 degree and 12.6 are the same -- or different castings ???

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by cgeise

Has anyone confirmed the fact that the 11 degree and 12.6 are the same -- or different castings ???

x2..