[Formulajones]

Looks to me like Paul pretty much summed it up on post #2

[Murf]

Originally Posted by Jack P.

So did we answer the OP's question?

Ihyeah, I think these guys covered that quite awhile ago. 😂

It’s really interesting stuff to read but way over my head.

Merry Christmas to each and everyone!
Mirg

[TCSGTO]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Looks to me like Paul pretty much summed it up on post #2

He did, quite well as usual for him. But this PY where every engine thread gets hijacked in to a camshaft lecture.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Formulajones

Looks to me like Paul pretty much summed it up on post #2

More people should listen to Paul

[BLANK1]

I had a set of E-heads on my 400 stroked to a 461. They were just cleaned up with 2.11/1.66 valves and a 2.3X1.2 intake opening. Exhaust ports were just polished. 10.8 C.R. Northwind, 1050 Dominator, and a 255/263 @ .050 .650 lift solid roller. Ran a best 10.98 at 122 mph in my 3800+ lb 68 GTO. Took the E-heads off and installed a set of KRE High Ports with no other changes. Compression was 10.6 with HP's. They have 2.20/1.7 valves. Ran the same times as with the E-heads.

[steve25]

Was there a 60 ft or a 1/8 difference between either heads?

[BLANK1]

60 fts were a little better with the E-heads and the 1/8th mile times were close to the same. Best 60 with E-heads was 1.54 and best with HP's was 1.58.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by BLANK1

I had a set of E-heads on my 400 stroked to a 461. They were just cleaned up with 2.11/1.66 valves and a 2.3X1.2 intake opening. Exhaust ports were just polished. 10.8 C.R. Northwind, 1050 Dominator, and a 255/263 @ .050 .650 lift solid roller. Ran a best 10.98 at 122 mph in my 3800+ lb 68 GTO. Took the E-heads off and installed a set of KRE High Ports with no other changes. Compression was 10.6 with HP's. They have 2.20/1.7 valves. Ran the same times as with the E-heads.

What RPM did you turn the engine with the E heads and what RPM did you turn the engine with the KRE heads?

Stan

[dragracerx2813]

Originally Posted by slowbird

More people should listen to Paul

Yes they should!

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by BLANK1

60 fts were a little better with the E-heads and the 1/8th mile times were close to the same.

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...d.php?t=850003

Car is pretty heavy but it will be interesting if you resolve the mystery bottleneck in that combination. You changed a number of things with hardly any ET improvement.

[BLANK1]

Stan
6000 with the E-heads and up to 6500 with HP's. Took it to 6500 with E-heads and it didn't make a difference. Same with HP's. Ran best just launching off idle.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by BLANK1

Stan
6000 with the E-heads and up to 6500 with HP's. Took it to 6500 with E-heads and it didn't make a difference. Same with HP's. Ran best just launching off idle.

Thanks

Stan

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by BLANK1

I had a set of E-heads on my 400 stroked to a 461. They were just cleaned up with 2.11/1.66 valves and a 2.3X1.2 intake opening. Exhaust ports were just polished. 10.8 C.R. Northwind, 1050 Dominator, and a 255/263 @ .050 .650 lift solid roller. Ran a best 10.98 at 122 mph in my 3800+ lb 68 GTO. Took the E-heads off and installed a set of KRE High Ports with no other changes. Compression was 10.6 with HP's. They have 2.20/1.7 valves. Ran the same times as with the E-heads.

HP heads box stock straight from KRE?

[krisr]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

We're currently working on a factory block, pump gas engine using standard pushrod location Edelbrock Performer RPM heads with a 2.11 valve. These are the flow numbers:

.100 79
.200 152
.300 217
.400 264
.500 304
.550 333
.600 338
.650 342
.700 344

It's a relatively small but efficient port.

Jesus... for a 2.11" valve that's got some wow factor if you kept the CSA honest. Merry Christmas Paul & family, talk to you in the near year mate.

[steve25]

On a friends 505 cid motor with non wide port E heads I installed 2.19” valves , ported them to between 337 and 340 cfm .

In a 3300 lb car with driver in it went to a pretty good 9.13 in the 1/4 mile.

The mph was low ( 2 or so mph ) from what it should have been due to the port volume as the motor was done by the 1000 ft mark or so, but the track times where very consistent with changing air quality’s.

The bigger valve was installed for two main reasons, to get a more efficient valve job in place to fatten up the flow numbers around .400” lift , and to gain a tad more compression.

Note that these where not massive port volume heads, nor was the intake port roof raised up more then 1/16” above super duty flange height!

[chuckies76ta]

Steve, Any idea on HP and torque on this 505 cu in? That's a very nice time for a 3300 pound vehicle. Any mph times in the quarter? Our car is around 3700 pounds with a 505. Best so far is 10.28 at 130 mph.
Thanks

[steve25]

I estimate like 740 to 750 it would seem, I have no clue what level of torque it put out, but it would lift the front wheels 1.5 ft off the track until we lowered the wheely bar’s.

Note that once the heads where fitted with the larger valves that the motor was dead on 14.5 to 1 compression.

For the mph in the 1/4 I will check with my friend,
This was in a 67 GTO so the frontal area was not that of a first gen FB.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by krisr

Jesus... for a 2.11" valve that's got some wow factor if you kept the CSA honest. Merry Christmas Paul & family, talk to you in the near year mate.

Thanks Kris, that pushrod gets in the way every time . Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and your family. Hopefully 2022 puts an end to most of this craziness!

[BLANK1]

slowbird,
All I did to them was open the intake ports to 2.4X1 2 gasket opening and blend back a little. No flow numbers.. They were 80cc. My thinking was I had plans to build a bigger c.i. shortblock later on. Should've left them at 2.3X1.2 maybe? I'm no head expert. I took them off and had them milled to a 74cc chamber now. CR is now 11.3. Insatlled a Jones 316/320 @ seat. 263/269 @ .050 solid roller with .421/.412 lobes and 110 LSA. Still using 1.6 rockers. I port matched the Northwind to the 2.4X1.2 head opening, was 2.3X1.2 before. And cut out the cloverleaf. Best run was 10.96@ 123.85 mph with a 4800 stall converter. Was 4000 before. 60 fts were 1.6 to 1.64. Would a more aggressive lobed cam help any? Was thinking about nitrous also.
Sorry to OP for hijacking your thread.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by BLANK1

slowbird,
All I did to them was open the intake ports to 2.4X1 2 gasket opening and blend back a little. No flow numbers.. They were 80cc. My thinking was I had plans to build a bigger c.i. shortblock later on. Should've left them at 2.3X1.2 maybe? I'm no head expert. I took them off and had them milled to a 74cc chamber now. CR is now 11.3. Insatlled a Jones 316/320 @ seat. 263/269 @ .050 solid roller with .421/.412 lobes and 110 LSA. Still using 1.6 rockers. I port matched the Northwind to the 2.4X1.2 head opening, was 2.3X1.2 before. And cut out the cloverleaf. Best run was 10.96@ 123.85 mph with a 4800 stall converter. Was 4000 before. 60 fts were 1.6 to 1.64. Would a more aggressive lobed cam help any? Was thinking about nitrous also.
Sorry to OP for hijacking your thread.

Was curious if the valve job was from KRE.
What diameter pushrod you running?
More aggressive opening on intake side is always good imo as long as the springs and pushrods are good.