[JKGTO]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Les Apt:
jkgto:

call tom dawson at dawson racing headers. tom will sit down with u and show u how to build ur own headers. the hardest part, he said, is deciding in ur mind where u want the pipes to go. the welding part is the easy part. give him a call. he mite even have the V flanges but i don't know.

les <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ron Watt(tunnelport) is in process of making me a set. Tom S. is getting a set made also. May get a second set from Toms guy if price is right to try out. Making a set myself was my last choice and hope I dont have to do it. I have made a lot of calls and emails in doing this RAV engine. Its not easy or cheap putting one of these together. But I think my 15 year dream of having one will be worth it in the end. Jim.

[NHRASuperStock455SD]

All I can do is present the technical merits of RA-V engine in my opinion, and let public opinion fall where it may.

"Rectangular" ports verses "round" ports is not the issue.

The issues are:

*cross sectional area of the intake port to the face of the valve.

*Valve shrouding.

It is this minimum cross sectional area that limits power.

If you put the pushrod to the side of the port, this requires volume that could be more properly utilized to increase that cross sectional area.

In fact, it was Pontiacs downfall, as the RA-V ports were way too big.

A big block chevy or splayed valve small block may have rectangular ports, but that is where the similarity stops!

A 4.35 bore motor with a 4.210 stroke will require a minimum cross sectional area of 4.5342 square inches to be up with BBC Pro Stock engines.

Splayed valve heads are great, but who has one of those for a Pontiac? If anyone has a Pontiac Hemi head, send me one of those, and maybe we will do that one.

I am not interested in a complete redesign, as I dont think it is necessary. Cylinder head and bore will get us over 500 cu inches with a RA-V.

If we want 600-800 cu inches, we need to do something drastic like the BBC guys did. Right now just getting up to 500 cu inches is enough.

Steps!

Lynn

[Brian Baker]

Let me start this post by saying "It's Monday morning, and Mongo's been up since 5:30 with a sick kid, and hasn't had any caffeine yet".

What is all this talk of filling "voids" and "niches" bull*****? Do we need a head to fill any void, whether it's real or perceived, between KRE heads, E-heads, Wenzler-II heads, Super Queefs, and the DCI-AllPontiac heads?

Guys like Tom that can make a V head streetable, well hey, that's super. My hat's off to them. Making another head taken from the V design to serve such a purpose would be equivalent to pissing up a rope, and pissing your pants while wearing a navy blue suit. Both endeavors are fruitless and will probably not get noticed.

Lynn is talking about a balls to the wall design, one that possibly could compete (at least on paper) with a modern Pro Stock head. And you guys want to talk about "street" and "stock blocks"? Give me a f@$king break here. Go out and buy what's already available.

Lynn, it all sounds great, and like I said, for what I want to do, I'm all for it so long as I can find an intake that doesn't cost $3000, but I'm in the minority on this one. Most racers will be going at it naturally aspirated, or perhaps like Ray and Ken, with some sort of "under the hood" power adder.

My questions about oval vs. rectangular I guess would have more to do with the "quality" of flow. I asked Ken Keefer if he could elaborate as to why a BBC with rectangular port heads made more power than ovals, but I guess he missed that one. If both designs have a comparable cross-sectional area, is there really any advantage to running one over the other? It seems to me (particularly in a N/A combo) that the majority of the flow will be hugging the roof of the port, not the walls or the floor (well, not until the short turn radius of the port would I think the flow would hug the floor). It also seems to me that this is why the Chevy LS1 port is tall and narrow. Any thoughts, Lynn and Ken?

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Retngular or Oval isn't an answer. It's what designers had to work with Back in the day. and what they have today..starting with fresh paper.
75% of current technology is fresh concepts. Not new ideas but fresh concepts working from a fresh set of standards.
I was putting 2.19/1.88 in Oval port BBC heads and making more hp in certain applications then the more expensive out of the box BBC rect port heads back in the early 70's.

Look at the skinny LS-1 head and flo #'s. Look at the SB-2 head and flow #'s.

I feel there is more to port design then just saying......... look at what they flowed back then............. so, so many factors involved to actually elaborate here.

But if someone wants to anti up the money, re-produce a RA V head........... go for it.
Their money, their investment and see what comes out.

Time and #'s will tell.

I guess there is a saying that says........you can't have enough options????

[GREATGTO]

here is my opinion on this whole idea of a new V head. the main reason we dont have a top notch pontiac cylinder head is because of the fact everyone just tries to remake or retool out dated pontiac cylinder heads. if you want to really get serious you shouldnt even be looking at any pontiac head, just start from scratch, a totally new design. pontiac people tend to get caught up in the whole LETS KEEP IT PONTIAC BASED TRAP. if you want to do a cylinder head , the only similarity to a pontiac head should be its bore spacing, period! its starting to look like the only way we will ever get a decent cylinder head is if a bb chevy aftermarket cylinder head maker decides to make us one, cause most pontiac people just dont have the right mind set.a new head should have nothing to do with pontiac designed heads, just share its bore spacing and head bolt pattern so it can be bolted onto a pontiac block. just my opinion. i still love everyone

[BigB]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GREATGTO:
here is my opinion on this whole idea of a new V head. the main reason we dont have a top notch pontiac cylinder head is because of the fact everyone just tries to remake or retool out dated pontiac cylinder heads. if you want to really get serious you shouldnt even be looking at any pontiac head, just start from scratch, a totally new design. pontiac people tend to get caught up in the whole LETS KEEP IT PONTIAC BASED TRAP. if you want to do a cylinder head , the only similarity to a pontiac head should be its bore spacing, period! its starting to look like the only way we will ever get a decent cylinder head is if a bb chevy aftermarket cylinder head maker decides to make us one, cause most pontiac people just dont have the right mind set.a new head should have nothing to do with pontiac designed heads, just share its bore spacing and head bolt pattern so it can be bolted onto a pontiac block. just my opinion. i still love everyone <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



well said

[bmpmdf]

If you want a 550+ cfm port, I already have a design for it. It would have to be made to fit a 4.350" or larger bore. But there isn't ten people in the Pontiac hobby that would accept it. But could be done with the Pontiac bolt pattern and pushrod location.

[Brian Baker]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bmpmdf:
If you want a 550+ cfm port, I already have a design for it. It would have to be made to fit a 4.350" or larger bore. But there isn't ten people in the Pontiac hobby that would accept it. But could be done with the Pontiac bolt pattern and pushrod location. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually I think they would accept it. In fact, most everyone would accept it. The problem you alluded to is market. It's not that "only 10 guys will accept it", it's that "only 10 guys will buy it".

[63lemanster]

I heard you can get an early Chrysler Hemi head to bolt right on to a Pontiac. is this true?if so theres the head we need

[russ467]

If that is the case, everyone should follow what Tom Vault stated recently. He said there is a BB Ford head that would be a direct bolt on to the block if one center head bolt hole was welded shut and moved over.

[GREATGTO]

WELL bmpmdf thats the problem, pontiac people tend to be more purist than other form of racers, if it wasnt based on a pontiac design they feel it isnt pontiac BIG WHOOP, YOU KNOW. sooner or later changes have to be made to compete at a top level.even when the aftermarket blocks were made i asked myself ''why didnt they change the bore spacing'' aftet all, they wanted a true race block right? Then they could have made the heads for such a block. its not like FORD, CHEVY AND MOPAR race blocks are factory based blocks, so why should pontiac.Now we see the same problems with cylinder heads. Lets all just be honest here, the reason is because there isnt a market for it, eveyones wants something that they can bolt onto their junker, not a true race engine for competition.I understand cost has a lot to do with the reasoning behind it, but lets stop playing this game of what we need to go fast unless we are willing to put up the money to support such a cylinder head or engine block for that matter.We might all be better off just starting up some kind of fund to develope a new cylinder head, R&D isnt cheap, but if we all put up 3000 dollars or so, im sure we could get a cylinder head developed that would have everything we ever wanted.Its not fair for us all to ask for the worlds greatest cylinder head for a pontiac but none of us put up the money, and believe me, money is an issue in developing a cylinder head.

[GREATGTO]

RUSS which head is that? ill go buy one tomorrow and do it. i know arias hemi heads can be made to fit with maching also, but thats a billet head, so why bother when a billet pontiac head can be made you knwo?

[Les Apt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GREATGTO:if you want to do a cylinder head , the only similarity to a pontiac head should be its bore spacing, period! a new head should have nothing to do with pontiac designed heads, just share its bore spacing and head bolt pattern so it can be bolted onto a pontiac block. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ur forgetting on thing greatgto, shouldnt it also accept a factory pontiac valve cover???

[russ467]

GreatGTO

Quote:
posted December 04, 2004 09:58 AM
Ideal head would be (Front of engine left side) E-I, E-I, E-I, E-I, with the drivers head).

When you install the head on the passenger side it would be from the front of the engine going to the firewall) I-E, I-E, I-E, I-E.

This puts the chambers in the right spots for the piston locations. Even though the Number #1 cylinder is specified as such on the Pontiac engine on the drivers bank, the actual most forward cylinder is the #2 cylinder on the RIGHT side of the engine. (like a Ford).

George,

You can have your Ram Air V aluminum head today (if you buy a Ford Tunnel Port DOVE ENGINEERING) head and move one head bolt in the head very slightly. All of the head bolts except for one will go right into the Pontiac block.

Mill off the material necessary on the exhaust to have your HIGH PORT exhaust (Ford racers have done that for years), build up the port shape you want, and get your shaft rocker system from T+D.

Once the intake is created (with a blower engine) no one could tell the difference from a Pontiac Ram Air V head either.

Tom V.


From http://forums.performanceyears.com/g...7039#205107039

[GREATGTO]

ACTUALLY NO, it would be better if it took a chevy valve cover, more of those out there, we had this discussion a few days ago about the lack of decent pontiac valve covers

[johnta1]

As of this post,there have been:
23 (33%)
I would definitely buy a RA-V alum head if someone made them.
30 (43%)
I would seriously consider buying a RA-V alum head combo.
5 (7%)
RA-V's are too out in left-field for me.
2 (3%)
A RA-V program will be successful, but I wouldnt ever buy one.
9 (13%)
RA-V's are neat, but will never sell.

Lynn was wanting to know if there was an interest in this head if it was affordable. ($2500).
I, for one would be.I would never spend $5500 or more for a set of heads especially if this was available. If I want to go faster than 7 secs. there is power adders.
I think the RA V's would be classified as a 'stock' head in most classes, where a wholly re-designed head wouldn't be probably.
As some on this board have said ,they would not get a different head because they already have close to $10,000 in their heads.
For the small guy, with a minimal amount of outlay, they could probably go faster than most of these guys are going.
As there were 23 saying they would buy it and 30 saying they probably would that's more than 10.

My 2¢

[Lloyd-TX]

I'm excited about the prospects of an "updated" RA V cylinder head, espcially one cast in aluminum.

Even though I have probably classified as a "tire kicker" here, I voted that I would definitely buy a set. I have been a tire kicker mostly because I'm waiting for a lot of these new Pontiac parts to become available, and I was hoping someone would step up and re-cast RA V stuff.

The prospects for a 535" IA2 deal (4.35" bore x 4.5" stroke) running aluminum RA V cylinder heads in my 1970 GTO has me DROOLING!

My preferences would be:

1) External appearance very close to originals
2) Combustion chambers to be finished by my cylinder head specialist
3) No valve seats or guides
4) Dual plane single 4V intake manifold, and I would prefer to use a Q-Jet
5) All external parts interchangeable with original RA V components, i.e. valve covers, exhaust and intake manifolds, etc.

Lyn, I dearly hope that you can make this happen!

[russ467]

Loyd likes to go fast but look bone stock.

[Lloyd-TX]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Les Apt:
Lloyd:

a dual plane intake and a quadrajet?

on a V motor?

ur obviously joking arent u? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

NOPE!

This IS going to be a street driven engine, in a HEAVY, highway geared, TH400, A/C, P/S, PDB, etc. 1970 GTO.

I DON'T like Holley carburetors, but I realize that's what the OEM V intakes were flanged for, so I may have to use one. I sure would like an OEM appearing single 4V dual pane intake, however.

I knew I would be taking a lot of gaff from this post, so be it.

[tom s]

Lloyd,it will be a great project,will have to select a cam very carefully.A auto trans,power brake car might not be easy.Tom