New SBC Manifold with tooling

[EDC]

I just wish manufacturers would provide products the make.

So damned sick of back-orders...

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

You make good points Jon. But if you want to break existing constraints, you have to accept a reasonable failure rate. You won't learn anything new if you're too conservative. You have to be open to trying something different. You have to focus on an objective and list all the best options to get there. Then try the best options and see if you're any closer to achieving your objectives. From there hopefully a solution will come out. If not, repeat.

When you say to yourself that there is no better solution, then you ended any ability to move forward.

I am open to looking at problems to see if there are solutions.
When I explain that there are geometric constraints that prevent something from working these are facts, discovered from the experience of testing them, not opinions.
These are not complex problems or mysterious things that have undiscovered solutions.

[F-BIRD'88]

This big Dart "Box Ram" (BBC) is exactly what I am getting at.
https://www.vividracing.com/wm.php/imag ... 430060.jpg

[F-BIRD'88]

Here is the LS engine version of the Dart "Box Ram".
There are various tops including blank tops.
Now you and the end user can play with the lenum, top ports etc. Capable of spread 2x2 single 4150 or 4500.
tri power, street carbs 2x 4 on a adapter.
Or various forms of EFI.
Dart has their finger on the pulse.
http://dartheads.com/dart-product/race- ... 0-box-ram/

Joe, have a look at these. Worth considering on your project...

[F-BIRD'88]

I'd make top flange fairly wide to allow a O ring channel cut in so the Forced Induction crew can ♪♪play along ♪♪.

[Newold1]

I don't believe I over estimated the desire for a symmetrical port head on the small block chevy, The original block design and head bolt configuration would just not allow for an even small offset port placement on both intake and exhaust ports.

The old adage," build it and they will come" would seem a better determiner for those heads appearing and being used except it would require a whole new block design to facilitate a true symmetrical port head. Now that the LS type small block engine has addressed this solution and you can see how successful this engine has become in the aftermarket especially in such a short time shows that if there is a great benefit, it can be sold at reasonable pricing the market will lap it up like a kitty on milk!

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

I don't believe I over estimated the desire for a symmetrical port head on the small block chevy, The original block design and head bolt configuration would just not allow for an even small offset port placement on both intake and exhaust ports.

The old adage," build it and they will come" would seem a better determiner for those heads appearing and being used except it would require a whole new block design to facilitate a true symmetrical port head. Now that the LS type small block engine has addressed this solution and you can see how successful this engine has become in the aftermarket especially in such a short time shows that if there is a great benefit, it can be sold at reasonable pricing the market will lap it up like a kitty on milk!

Do you actually know what the aftermarket sales are for LS heads?

[Warp Speed]

You make good points Jon. But if you want to break existing constraints, you have to accept a reasonable failure rate. You won't learn anything new if you're too conservative. You have to be open to trying something different. You have to focus on an objective and list all the best options to get there. Then try the best options and see if you're any closer to achieving your objectives. From there hopefully a solution will come out. If not, repeat.

When you say to yourself that there is no better solution, then you ended any ability to move forward.

I am open to looking at problems to see if there are solutions.
When I explain that there are geometric constraints that prevent something from working these are facts, discovered from the experience of testing them, not opinions.
These are not complex problems or mysterious things that have undiscovered solutions.

So you are saying a symmetrical port can't work on a standard SBC, due to the head bolt arrangement or?

[Keith Morganstein]

I don't believe I over estimated the desire for a symmetrical port head on the small block chevy, The original block design and head bolt configuration would just not allow for an even small offset port placement on both intake and exhaust ports.

The old adage," build it and they will come" would seem a better determiner for those heads appearing and being used except it would require a whole new block design to facilitate a true symmetrical port head. Now that the LS type small block engine has addressed this solution and you can see how successful this engine has become in the aftermarket especially in such a short time shows that if there is a great benefit, it can be sold at reasonable pricing the market will lap it up like a kitty on milk!

Do you actually know what the aftermarket sales are for LS heads?

I'd say sales are pretty low. The factory LS heads are good and respond well to minmal porting.
Factory stock LS engines make good power with a tune. The typical LS swap with tune is more than enough power for most people.

[PRH]

From the tone of the posts about the LS head sales, I gather the numbers must be low.

What seems odd to me about that is........ there certainly doesn’t seem to be any shortage of manufacturers selling them....... and they usually have multiple offerings.

Just off the top of my head......

AFR
Dart
Brodix
TFS
Edelbrock
Speedmaster
Promaxx

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

You make good points Jon. But if you want to break existing constraints, you have to accept a reasonable failure rate. You won't learn anything new if you're too conservative. You have to be open to trying something different. You have to focus on an objective and list all the best options to get there. Then try the best options and see if you're any closer to achieving your objectives. From there hopefully a solution will come out. If not, repeat.

When you say to yourself that there is no better solution, then you ended any ability to move forward.

I am open to looking at problems to see if there are solutions.
When I explain that there are geometric constraints that prevent something from working these are facts, discovered from the experience of testing them, not opinions.
These are not complex problems or mysterious things that have undiscovered solutions.

So you are saying a symmetrical port can't work on a standard SBC, due to the head bolt arrangement or?

I am saying the cost and complexities of doing so are beyond the ambitions and capabilities of 99.9 % of the aftermarket consumer. The cost of putting symmetrical heads on a gen1 SBC is more than a better complete. engine.
If one decides to do it anyhow, they are still stuck with a small diameter cam that had to be made from a custom core.

[Ron E]

How about lessons learned with Dart-Buicks and splayed valve heads?

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

From the tone of the posts about the LS head sales, I gather the numbers must be low.

What seems odd to me about that is........ there certainly doesn’t seem to be any shortage of manufacturers selling them....... and they usually have multiple offerings.

Just off the top of my head......

AFR
Dart
Brodix
TFS
Edelbrock
Speedmaster
Promaxx

That is part of the problem, the market is way over supplied.
Margins for CNC porting are less than $50/hr (most of the time mix less). That is pitiful considering the cost of equipment and software and people. The same level of complexity work for aerospace pays 5x times more.

[JoePorting]

From the tone of the posts about the LS head sales, I gather the numbers must be low.

What seems odd to me about that is........ there certainly doesn’t seem to be any shortage of manufacturers selling them....... and they usually have multiple offerings.

Just off the top of my head......

AFR
Dart
Brodix
TFS
Edelbrock
Speedmaster
Promaxx

That is part of the problem, the market is way over supplied.
Margins for CNC porting are less than $50/hr (most of the time mix less). That is pitiful considering the cost of equipment and software and people. The same level of complexity work for aerospace pays 5x times more.

I often wondered if a place like AFR figured out that they could make 10X more money as a DOD aerospace job shop, if they would stop making cylinder heads and start making aerospace parts. It probably wouldn't take much to switch over.

[JoePorting]

This big Dart "Box Ram" (BBC) is exactly what I am getting at.
https://www.vividracing.com/wm.php/imag ... 430060.jpg

I think that design would work better if the runners were straighter. IMO, the whole idea of the box is to slow the air down so that it can be better lined up with the runner when the intake valve opens up.