[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Here Jake's cam card, Jake didn't have a lot of time on the engine, I'd bet he would have issues if he had more time on it. It's a pretty aggressive cam, lift/duration it up there.

Brian,
Interesting that the top half and bottom of the printed cam card do not agree. The handwritten part does. Earlier major intensity was talked about. That cam has a major intensity of 28.

Stan

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Leech is a very special case and even he planned to step up to HP heads, if they weren't better why would he switch to HP heads?
List all the 900hp pump gas e-heads that are out there, please
And no I don't think valve weight is an issue in low rpm builds.

I know Mike was going to HPs. In fact, I was the first person to put it out there. He told me the day before he died and wanted it kept secrete. He said the 480cfm was there if they used offset guides. Johns first set went 462cfm with the valves centered so 480 might have been there with a ton of work.
Krull was the guy. I did not know his engine did not last.

[Gach]

Just want to put this out there as far as E-head vs high port. The best flowing wide port I know of flowed 406 cfm. Maybe a little better not Disputing it’s possible. Supposedly John hp for Mike 464/ maybe 480. But the new wide port BES Victor head which essentially Pro port e-head as BES Flows 480 cfm. And it will make 950 hp on pump gas.

[Jay S]

Originally Posted by slowbird

I've read about Krull engine, did he ever run that engine on the track? I tend to discount dyno numbers until there are also track numbers to go with them.
I wouldn't run Jake's cam in a stock unless I planned to replace it a lot, lol. Short duration and high lift usually side load a lot (I understand there's more to it). I plan to run that in an IA block on the street, I think it'll be ok in it.

That extra side load from that aggressive profile isn’t very easy on lifters or lifter bores.

I think you may be correct that it wasn’t ran in the car after it was dynoed the last time on pump gas. I’ll have to ask him about the last version next time I take too him. I only remember the 15:1 version running mid 9s at just under 140 on his shake down runs.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Gach

Just want to put this out there as far as E-head vs high port. The best flowing wide port I know of flowed 406 cfm. Maybe a little better not Disputing it’s possible. Supposedly John hp for Mike 464/ maybe 480. But the new wide port BES Victor head which essentially Pro port e-head as BES Flows 480 cfm. And it will make 950 hp on pump gas.

Not sure what this has to do with this thread but I'd hope 480cfm BES head could make 950hp.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Jay S

That extra side load from that aggressive profile isn’t very easy on lifters or lifter bores.

Ya, lifters will need checked/rebuilt/replaced every winter I think depending on run time.

[Gach]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Not sure what this has to do with this thread but I'd hope 480cfm BES head could make 950hp.

Well it was you who said the hp was better then e-head.

[Dragncar]

From my conversations with Gach the Kinsler and Sik Goat Gabby E heads flowed more. Siks the most but they leaked water.
Jacks flowed a little less but did not leak.
It was JMs High Ports done for 10secgp that flowed 462cfm. He bought Mikes highly modified BOP to go with them.
I wonder how that all worked out ? Never heard.
I am just about ready to throw this High Port 461 together with my old UD .4176 lobe cam I ran for years and years. 264-271 on a 106. At least I know it will not tear anything up.
Getting sick of hearing about my engine breaking. I just want to go race at this point.
It would be .7099 lift with my rockers. 100+ more cfm and over 2 points CR vs my old combo.
Oh, Mikes E heads flower 414cfm. And no epoxy either. Thats why I wanted them.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

From my conversations with Gach the Kinsler and Sik Goat Gabby E heads flowed more. Siks the most but they leaked water.
Jacks flowed a little less but did not leak.
It was JMs High Ports done for 10secgp that flowed 462cfm. He bought Mikes highly modified BOP to go with them.
I wonder how that all worked out ? Never heard.
I am just about ready to throw this High Port 461 together with my old UD .4176 lobe cam I ran for years and years. 264-271 on a 106. At least I know it will not tear anything up.
Getting sick of hearing about my engine breaking. I just want to go race at this point.
It would be .7099 lift with my rockers. 100+ more cfm and over 2 points CR vs my old combo.
Oh, Mikes E heads flower 414cfm. And no epoxy either. Thats why I wanted them.

Troy,
If you talk with JM. I bet he will want to talk about getting the right CSA for you combination and cfm may or may not come up.

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by slowbird

I've read about Krull engine, did he ever run that engine on the track? I tend to discount dyno numbers until there are also track numbers to go with them.
I wouldn't run Jake's cam in a stock unless I planned to replace it a lot, lol. Short duration and high lift usually side load a lot (I understand there's more to it). I plan to run that in an IA block on the street, I think it'll be ok in it.

I don't if this is the most HP John Krull made, but I have to say they should did include enough information on the dyno sheet,

Stan

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Troy,
If you talk with JM. I bet he will want to talk about getting the right CSA for you combination and cfm may or may not come up.

Stan

I know all that. CFM is just a label we put on heads. If someone gave us heads cataloged with CSA, fine.
It seems in the Pontiac world cfm is what the masses go by and the Chevy world when you look at aftermarket Chevy heads it seems they go by CCs of the runner.
Not sure why, just something I noticed.
I know the last few times Mikes heads got worked on they were not even flowed. Mike said they could have been past 414cfm.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Gach

Well it was you who said the hp was better then e-head.

Don't be dumb, you know what e-head we are talking about and it wasn't the pro port.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

I don't if this is the most HP John Krull made, but I have to say they should did include enough information on the dyno sheet,

Stan

That was with 15+ compression.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

From my conversations with Gach the Kinsler and Sik Goat Gabby E heads flowed more. Siks the most but they leaked water.
Jacks flowed a little less but did not leak.
It was JMs High Ports done for 10secgp that flowed 462cfm. He bought Mikes highly modified BOP to go with them.
I wonder how that all worked out ? Never heard.
I am just about ready to throw this High Port 461 together with my old UD .4176 lobe cam I ran for years and years. 264-271 on a 106. At least I know it will not tear anything up.
Getting sick of hearing about my engine breaking. I just want to go race at this point.
It would be .7099 lift with my rockers. 100+ more cfm and over 2 points CR vs my old combo.
Oh, Mikes E heads flower 414cfm. And no epoxy either. Thats why I wanted them.

Who said your block would break with the Bullet regrind?
10second hp engine went nowhere, it wasn't finished and he sold everything. Also I bet those heads didn't come close to 460cfm

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by slowbird

That was with 15+ compression.

Brian
My labeling and filing of dyno sheets is really bad. Is this the one?

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

I know all that. CFM is just a label we put on heads. If someone gave us heads cataloged with CSA, fine.
It seems in the Pontiac world cfm is what the masses go by and the Chevy world when you look at aftermarket Chevy heads it seems they go by CCs of the runner.
Not sure why, just something I noticed.
I know the last few times Mikes heads got worked on they were not even flowed. Mike said they could have been past 414cfm.

Troy,
You also need to watch when talking about port cc's. A Super Stock head has to have no more that the list port cc's. But because the floor of the port is filled and the roof raised and the shape changed some it will flow more cfm from the same cc's. One of the things that is done is to try and equalize the port velocity so there are no dead spots or super fast spots.

Stan

[Steve C.]

Stated- "You also need to watch when talking about port cc's. A Super Stock head has to have no more than the list port cc's. But because the floor of the port is filled and the roof raised and the shape changed some it will flow more cfm from the same cc's. One of the things that is done is to try and equalize the port velocity so there are no dead spots or super fast spots."

Sort of related, and not suggesting its apples-to-apples here with Troy's adventures. With my set of raw High Port casings purchased 18 years ago we sent them to Slick Racing Heads in Houston for his port work. He had never seen a set before. He did his typical Small block Chevy Comp Eliminator port with a 13 degree valve angle. The emphasis on port design rather than maximum high lift flow numbers, flow under the curve stuff. The floor on the ports were filled some and the roof raised to about 2.6". And about 1.4" wide. Again I'd have to look at my notes from the dark ages but if memory serves me right they flowed 412 to 417 cfm at .850 lift, depending on the bench. I report these cfm lift numbers because we had a Bullet 55mm solid roller cam with .5000" lobe lift on the intake with a 1.7 rocker ratio. The 526CID engine made 920 hp at 7000 rpm.


.

[Stan Weiss]

Steve,
Slick Rick is a very good head porter. Didn't know he worked on Pontias.

Stan

[Stan Weiss]

OK, Back to cams

About this velocity graph. I don't have lobe lift files for any of these lobes and so I generated / simulated them. For Jake's intake lobe I used the specs for a Comp Cams 11516 lobe.

The green line is Jake's lobe. The red line is Dragncar's old Comp Cam 2229 lobe and the blue lobe is Dragncar's new Bullet lobe.

Stan

[Steve C.]

Another tid bit. Back in 2008 when Dave Bisschop was starting to work on the KRE High Port heads he was pleased with the high lift flow numbers BUT below .600" he was finding they weren't 'any better' than his 330 cfm Edelbrock head package at the time. He was seeing 380+ at 0.750" lift, beyond that it was getting a bit turbulent and he was close to max without going to a wider and taller port. This was the standard pushrod location head and it appeared the entrance size was the bottleneck. Again, this was his initial work when starting to digitize the Head, and reported at the time. His final outcome might be different.

.