New SBC Manifold with tooling

[MadBill]

Doesn't look to me like the exhaust valve is that big..

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Doesn't look to me like the exhaust valve is that big..

Exactly, draw a line that passes through the center of the bore and parallel to the tangent point of both valves.

You will notice that the valves are biased far to the side of the cylinder, they have to be to make the valve-train work on the Gen 1 block.

A lot of ideas look good until you model them up in CAD and find out all the compromises that are required to make everything fit together.

[GARY C]

Look at the date of those symmetrical port heads! 1980"s - almost 40 years ago! Sad that the thoughts of changing cams, intakes and rockers kept the real furthur development and application of symmetrical port heads out of the evolution of the small block chevy in racing and aftermarket !!

Only the SB2 development finally brought symmetrical port SBC heads to racing and only in the SB2.2 versions and in Nascar only!

It was somewhat obvious in those days versus today that what the OEM"S like Chevy and Ford developed or sponsored, that products in the racing and performance world only moved at timing and direction those two OEM's allowed in their organizations!

I don't understand the fascination of putting heads on a block with a design configuration that it was never intended for.

The problem wasn't that no one made them, the problem was no one bought them.

Working at Edelbrock I learned how many heads that people spend a lot of time discussing only ever sold a few sets in some cases.

Seems to be a common theme on all your posts, could it be that your belief has narrowed your scope of possibility?

You do realize that Edelbrock is the last cylinder head that anyone ever looks at in terms of performance or innovation. If it wasn't for the original Victor Jr no one would even know edelbrock existed.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Seems to be a common theme on all your posts, could it be that your belief has narrowed your scope of possibility?

I used to think a lot of stuff would work before I modeled it in CAD and discovered the problems various designs have.
I have modeled 100's of designs of alternative heads, sometimes on my own, sometimes for clients. If you stray much from what has been worked-out, 90% of the time, you will discover why the idea you had wasn't made.
Frankly, the innovative stuff isn't good business, the old standards are.

Consider the AFR plastic manifolds, they were innovative for their time and made power.
Insiders have told me they didn't break even on it.
People don't buy enough innovative stuff for it to be good business, especially if it comes with risk or complication.

Everyone I know that has done the work I have, has the same understanding.
If you (or anyone) did the same work you would come to the same conclusion.
There is no real mystery or magic involved in geometry of 70 year old engine designs.


With regards to innovation at Edelbrock, there is a big difference between what happened in R&D and what marketing went forward with.
As an outsider, you probably don't know how many designs are manufactured there for private label by other companies.
Like the decisions they make or not, they are probably the most successful business in the performance after market casting business. That is not to say they don't have big problems, they do, frankly just about everyone manufacturing in the performance after market does, the industry is struggling.

[JoePorting]

Why is Edelbrock still in Torrance, CA? I'd think it would make sense to sell their real estate at a great gain and move somewhere else where it's cheaper and easier to retain employees. Oregon has no sales tax, so I'd think that would be a great place for a cylinder head company like Edelbrock, AFR or any high dollar performance company.

In terms of the industry, with CAD, pattern making, CNC work becoming more accessible to the common guy, I think Edelbrock is going to struggle even more. Companies like MBE, Frankenstein, and others are filling the high end niche market leaving Edelbrock with the OEM performance replacement market. They'll probably have to ship more production to China like everyone else in the corporate world.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Why is Edelbrock still in Torrance, CA? I'd think it would make sense to sell their real estate at a great gain and move somewhere else where it's cheaper and easier to retain employees. Oregon has no sales tax, so I'd think that would be a great place for a cylinder head company like Edelbrock, AFR or any high dollar performance company.

You are correct to guess that is one of the biggest problems.
Real estate and labor costs are not efficient.
Good quality talent can't afford to live nearby.

Cylinder-heads are made for high quality OEMs in low-cost labor countries all over the world, if you were going to invest in relocating the company, smart money would not choose a destination in the USA.
Why would anyone invest in the performance after market?

[JoePorting]

I'm guessing most people invest in the performance industry because they like it, not because of the return on investment. Most investments are boring. If you're already rich, why invest in something boring.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

I'm guessing most people invest in the performance industry because they like it, not because of the return on investment. Most investments are boring. If you're already rich, why invest in something boring.

The only place in that is any fun there is R&D.
Manufacturing engine castings isn't fun or even interesting.

People that want to do R&D on engine stuff, usually spend their money on racing, at least there is excitement of competition and a chance of some glory.

Manufacturing companies have to conform to what their customers will buy.
If you don't do that, you might as well throw your money on a fire.

[Newold1]

Let's face it for the small block chevy crowd the LS engine design solved many of the problems because they did indeed start from the bottom up and designed the block and head bolt configuration so that the a true symmetrical head would fit the OHV pushrod design and yet provide simple slight left and right offsets on both intake and exhaust manifold manifolds. Bit of a shame that GM could not have realized this design earlier than 1999.

Ford did it a lot earlier than Chevy but they just could not get a decent set of cylinders heads to work as they could have. AH, missed opportunities. The aftermarket is full of them!

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

Let's face it for the small block chevy crowd the LS engine design solved many of the problems because they did indeed start from the bottom up and designed the block and head bolt configuration so that the a true symmetrical head would fit the OHV pushrod design and yet provide simple slight left and right offsets on both intake and exhaust manifold manifolds. Bit of a shame that GM could not have realized this design earlier than 1999.

Ford did it a lot earlier than Chevy but they just could not get a decent set of cylinders heads to work as they could have. AH, missed opportunities. The aftermarket is full of them!

I think you overestimate the markets desire for a symmetrical port head.
Fords were available, they weren't popular.

SB2.2 were available, they were not popular, their incompatibility with standard parts was too much complexity for 99%+ of the market.

You have different priorities than GM did.
GM is a business, their priority is to make money.
The Gen 1 SBC is one of the greatest business successes in automotive history.
The optimizations we care about for engine design are not even on the first 100 pages of their "care about this" list.
That difference in priorities is what makes them a business success and most racers broke.

[David Vizard]

I'm guessing most people invest in the performance industry because they like it, not because of the return on investment. Most investments are boring. If you're already rich, why invest in something boring.

The only place in that is any fun there is R&D.
Manufacturing engine castings isn't fun or even interesting.

People that want to do R&D on engine stuff, usually spend their money on racing, at least there is excitement of competition and a chance of some glory.

Manufacturing companies have to conform to what their customers will buy.
If you don't do that, you might as well throw your money on a fire.

And yet the OE still make design mistakes that increase the price of the vehicle, decrease performance, drivability and reliability as well as cut profit.
I suppose i should not complain as if they got it right on first time I woulds have lost half a life's income.
DV

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

That is just the human condition.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5f8hjzxmkA

[JoePorting]

???

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

???

Did you see the video?

It shows the difference experience makes.

[JoePorting]

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.