New SBC Manifold with tooling

[JoePorting]

Here's a few pictures with the mock-up heads. The billet mock-up heads were made by Pete Adams at QMP Racing. My final casted heads are slightly different. The valley plate is an Edelbrock SB2.2 piece. The manifold is just the raw casting. No machining has been done to it yet.

Engine 1.jpg

Engine 2.jpg

Engine 3.jpg

[Fatman]

0.5 Runner diameter is reasonable but that is dead space, not desirable on a carbureted manifold.
This is one of the reasons that manifolds usually have an X shape rather than H.

Another reason is runner length.

Fix the end wall to runner opening situation, and cast the top with flanges for a Split Dominator....basically make a dual 2-Barrel deal out of it, might show some real promise.

Not with those short runners or large combustion chambers.

I think the head will have a lot of runner length. Looks like a very high port.

[F-BIRD'88]

I think what you are doing is very cool.
It is going to need development and tweeks but will be very cool once sorted out.

[F-BIRD'88]

https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/download/file.php?id=12920

Here is a example of a H pattern single plane intake manifold. A single 4 bbl most likely will not work very well on this.. But 2x4, 2x2 or 3x2 carbs will work very well. Something to consider.

[Newold1]

I think the real "cats meow" would be this type of H-manifold with two 850 cfm 2 barrel carbs like below mounted over the center line of the siamesed ports on that head style. Air always like the straightest path between throttle plate and intake valve.

[F-BIRD'88]

I think the real "cats meow" would be this type of H-manifold with two 850 cfm 2 barrel carbs like below mounted over the center line of the siamesed ports on that head style. Air always like the straightest path between throttle plate and intake valve.

And one lil 350cfm 2300 2bbl in the middle to idle and drive around on..too. Those big 2bbls are cool..." Now you're cookin' with gas"

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

I think the head will have a lot of runner length. Looks like a very high port.

What is the length?

[JoePorting]

The bottom of the intake port is 2.5" off the deck with the roof being 5.2" off the deck (2.7" x 1.5"), so it's going to move alot of air. Not sure what the runner length is, but I know it's long because the port is so high and the intake face is zero degrees with the port extending another .500" beyond that. I think this port is taller than a Pro-Stock intake port. The exhaust port is a full 5" high. Can't think of anything that compares to that.

[dwilliams]

The headbolt pattern on an SBC is not compatible with a symmetrical port layout.

GM did it in the 1980s: https://www.teambuick.com/reference/lib ... d_head.php Used the Chevy head bolt pattern.

For a while each division had its own version of the small block Chevy for use in NASCAR. I always thought it would be nifty to put a set of symmetrical-port Buick heads on one of the Oldsmobile blocks, which had a 9.5" deck, raised cam, and Olds-width pan rails. The Pontiacs were basically just a Bowtie block and Brodix heads with Pontiac logos.

All the bits got a lot of press, but I don't know how much (if any) actually made it to customer hands, unlike, say, the Olds DRCE stuff.

[Newold1]

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!

[EDC]

The headbolt pattern on an SBC is not compatible with a symmetrical port layout.

GM did it in the 1980s: https://www.teambuick.com/reference/lib ... d_head.php Used the Chevy head bolt pattern.

For a while each division had its own version of the small block Chevy for use in NASCAR. I always thought it would be nifty to put a set of symmetrical-port Buick heads on one of the Oldsmobile blocks, which had a 9.5" deck, raised cam, and Olds-width pan rails. The Pontiacs were basically just a Bowtie block and Brodix heads with Pontiac logos.

All the bits got a lot of press, but I don't know how much (if any) actually made it to customer hands, unlike, say, the Olds DRCE stuff.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

The headbolt pattern on an SBC is not compatible with a symmetrical port layout.

GM did it in the 1980s: https://www.teambuick.com/reference/lib ... d_head.php Used the Chevy head bolt pattern.

For a while each division had its own version of the small block Chevy for use in NASCAR. I always thought it would be nifty to put a set of symmetrical-port Buick heads on one of the Oldsmobile blocks, which had a 9.5" deck, raised cam, and Olds-width pan rails. The Pontiacs were basically just a Bowtie block and Brodix heads with Pontiac logos.

All the bits got a lot of press, but I don't know how much (if any) actually made it to customer hands, unlike, say, the Olds DRCE stuff.

I know, and I saw one in development at Edelbrock.
Having seen that, is why I say they are not compatible.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

The headbolt pattern on an SBC is not compatible with a symmetrical port layout.

GM did it in the 1980s: https://www.teambuick.com/reference/lib ... d_head.php Used the Chevy head bolt pattern.

For a while each division had its own version of the small block Chevy for use in NASCAR. I always thought it would be nifty to put a set of symmetrical-port Buick heads on one of the Oldsmobile blocks, which had a 9.5" deck, raised cam, and Olds-width pan rails. The Pontiacs were basically just a Bowtie block and Brodix heads with Pontiac logos.

All the bits got a lot of press, but I don't know how much (if any) actually made it to customer hands, unlike, say, the Olds DRCE stuff.

That isn't a conventional symmetrical port layout.

Good reason heads like that don't make it into production, the locations of the port openings are impractical for good manifold design.

This is what happens when people become obsessed with one or two design characteristics and don't consider the big picture.

[SchmidtMotorWorks]

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.

[JoePorting]

Those are nice looking heads. Never seen them before. Like the way the intake port aims at the center of the chamber. The 2.05/1.94 valve sizes are strange. Would require a crazy looking manifold.