L48 Project: Ported Chevy 450 heads vs. Bowtie vortec heads

[gmrocket]

No, website has not even been a thought. I have done a bit of work for ST members maybe they will chime in. I have a few projects in the works but nothing I can share. Think of me as you will.. it matters not to me. Thanks, Charlie

Can't think anything of you if there isn't anything to check out. Seeing how you've posted about a hundred pics of your port work, I was thinking there would be something out there making some good power.

Thanks, Dale

Probably nothing that would impress you. Just for fun you could post up your EMC Olds 307 dyno vs. this 306 and see how I did. I do love that you guys did up an Olds. Thanks, Charlie

Did you pull it to 6500?

[Carnut1]

Can't think anything of you if there isn't anything to check out. Seeing how you've posted about a hundred pics of your port work, I was thinking there would be something out there making some good power.

Thanks, Dale

Probably nothing that would impress you. Just for fun you could post up your EMC Olds 307 dyno vs. this 306 and see how I did. I do love that you guys did up an Olds. Thanks, Charlie

Did you pull it to 6500?

I wish, the heads were set up for 7000 rpm and they stopped it at 5800 rpm due to the super short flat tappet cam. These E7's and two sets of 289 heads I did for this shootout are still in Virginia waiting for DV to dyno them.

[gmrocket]

Probably nothing that would impress you. Just for fun you could post up your EMC Olds 307 dyno vs. this 306 and see how I did. I do love that you guys did up an Olds. Thanks, Charlie

Did you pull it to 6500?

I wish, the heads were set up for 7000 rpm and they stopped it at 5800 rpm due to the super short flat tappet cam. These E7's and two sets of 289 heads I did for this shootout are still in Virginia waiting for DV to dyno them.

Peak TQ at 4300 and peak HP at 5700 sure seems like it could have gone way past that up top.

[levisnteeshirt]

I have an honest question. How many of you guys think that increasing low lift flow increases low end tq? I am guessing most. It actualy works 100% the opposite. The engine responds to it like you added duration. It hurts low end tq. So, on an application like this, that the goal is a tq monster, a 30 degree seat isn't desired, and will actualy hurt your goal. Doing the exact opposite, of what 90+% of the guys out there think is right, is what makes a strong "street" engine, is what makes a strong street engine. A revised steep top cut 45 degree valve job, or even, do I dare say it, a 50 degree seat will usualy make a big tq gain and make more horsepower. The engine will also come on the cam sooner, so, it will be more "street" drivable, will require slightly less converter, slightly less gear, and, a slightly smaller at .050 cam, and, a slightly wider lobe sep. All the above are very desirable for a "street" engine. The reason it work? The heads flow less at low lift. And, say .200-.300 on up, depending on the exact profile and back cuts flows a lot more. This makes the engine think it has more lift, the increased airflow thru the same cross section, has more velocity, and the engine gets stronger everywhere. In the rpm range that most engines built like this run in, the extra velocity will not hurt, and help power, evertwhere. Oh, and further, the slightly less .050 duration and slightly wider lobe sep, also will help vaccum, for power brakes, and improved mileage. All of which, again, is very desirable for a true "street" car. Unless you want to be down 15-20 ftlbs and the same amount of horsepower, and stronger power everywhere. Use the 30 degree seat. Also, the higher the rpm your targeting, the 30 degree seat becomes worse and worse. It what I calls, mechanicly bends the air harder, at higher flow rates and velocities, which, is counter productive to peak hp.



This discussion should be interesting.

Wouldn't this be accurate only if there was a reversion problem ? Correct me if I'm wrong ,, but more air earlier should pack the cylinder harder if IVC point remains the same ?

[gmrocket]

No, website has not even been a thought. I have done a bit of work for ST members maybe they will chime in. I have a few projects in the works but nothing I can share. Think of me as you will.. it matters not to me. Thanks, Charlie

Can't think anything of you if there isn't anything to check out. Seeing how you've posted about a hundred pics of your port work, I was thinking there would be something out there making some good power.

Thanks, Dale

Probably nothing that would impress you. Just for fun you could post up your EMC Olds 307 dyno vs. this 306 and see how I did. I do love that you guys did up an Olds. Thanks, Charlie

[gmrocket]

ok,, you asked for a comparison to see how you did. its not good. from 2500 thru 5700 you were down about 161 points compared to the olds if scored by EMC.

the olds heads flowed 220/160. these same heads on an 11.4 :1 set up made 504/454

[CGT]

but more air earlier should pack the cylinder harder if IVC point remains the same ?

The piston is going the wrong direction at IVC, more flow-more window area at and around IVC makes a much better chance of flow going the wrong direction(reversion).

[Carnut1]

ok,, you asked for a comparison to see how you did. its not good. from 2500 thru 5700 you were down about 161 points compared to the olds if scored by EMC.

the olds heads flowed 220/160. these same heads on an 11.4 :1 set up made 504/454

Ford 306 9 to 1 comp, thick head gaskets, 204, 204, .472, .472 on 110 lc. Eddie rpm air gap, 750 quickfuel carb.

[CGT]

ok,, you asked for a comparison to see how you did. its not good. from 2500 thru 5700 you were down about 161 points compared to the olds if scored by EMC.

LOL. That's it? To be honest though, most on here wouldn't know how hard that many points can be to come by. There is a tendency for people that don't know to think that many points are just a slight cam change or jet change a way.

[gmrocket]

ok,, you asked for a comparison to see how you did. its not good. from 2500 thru 5700 you were down about 161 points compared to the olds if scored by EMC.

the olds heads flowed 220/160. these same heads on an 11.4 :1 set up made 504/454

Ford 306 9 to 1 comp, thick head gaskets, 204, 204, .472, .472 on 110 lc. Eddie rpm air gap, 750 quickfuel carb.

you asked, i answered. cubes dont matter cuz it was avg power divided by the cubes. the olds didnt have an air gap,or a fancy holley, or any burr finish inside or out. and it didnt have DV or you engineering it

those ford heads would look like a race piece to start with compared to the mid 80's 307 head

[Carnut1]

ok,, you asked for a comparison to see how you did. its not good. from 2500 thru 5700 you were down about 161 points compared to the olds if scored by EMC.

the olds heads flowed 220/160. these same heads on an 11.4 :1 set up made 504/454

Ford 306 9 to 1 comp, thick head gaskets, 204, 204, .472, .472 on 110 lc. Eddie rpm air gap, 750 quickfuel carb.

you asked, i answered. cubes dont matter cuz it was avg power divided by the cubes. the olds didnt have an air gap,or a fancy holley, or any burr finish inside or out. and it didnt have DV or you engineering it

those ford heads would look like a race piece to start with compared to the mid 80's 307 head

The airgap was stock, the cam was not the cam the heads were designed for, It was supposed to be a hydraulic roller 230 @ .050" and .56". I agree about those Olds heads I have only done a few of them... Terrible.

[randy331]

ok,, you asked for a comparison to see how you did. its not good. from 2500 thru 5700 you were down about 161 points compared to the olds if scored by EMC.

LOL. That's it? To be honest though, most on here wouldn't know how hard that many points can be to come by. There is a tendency for people that don't know to think that many points are just a slight cam change or jet change a way.

Well,... I heard 1 deg of LSA change is 100 emc points,..so,... I guess 2 deg LSA change will get you 200 points. !!

Randy