aluminum heads

quote:

Originally posted by lastpushbutton:
Well, After all is said and done. I think iwil save my money and just pull my heads and take them to the local machine shop and have stainless valves installed for under 400$

You are one smart cookie LPB, and I like you.

quote:

Originally posted by comp2:
LPB, after yopu get it fixed can you slowely gather up parts for a 2nd engine; just do a swap in the future? That is kind of my plan. Have one ready on the side for a swap.

......................................................Right Gary, I can get a windsor motor now. I'm keeping an eye out for one i can build and stroke too. My motor is pretty fresh. The builder just failed to replace the valves.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...A bit of a nit but the 3V port is larger than a 2V...

Ha, ha, ha...Dan my friend, yes, it is a bit of a nit. Rather than seeking technical accuracy, I was attempting to paint a picture in my reader's minds. But you go on picking nits! I wouldn't have you change a bit, I love your engineer's eye for detail.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...Saying that an AFD 2V head can support over 600 HP out-of-the-box is somewhat misleading....I know of a dyno verified stock displacement 351C with unported (NHRA legal valve job only) open chamber 4V heads that made 630+ HP...

Yes, I am quoting AFD/CHI sales BS. But, again, rather than seeking technical accuracy, I'm attempting to make a point, that these new 2V heads are very very good, and all the head the majority of enthusiasts will ever need. The statement is no less accurate than your statement about 630 bhp with unported 4V heads. In either case, its not something that just anybody can go out and do, any day of the week. You were making a point by citing the 4V motor's bhp, the same way I'm making a point by saying the 2Vs will support 600 bhp.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...Increasing RPM and cam timing come at a durability cost but better airflow does not....

To make a certain bhp, with a certain displacement motor, at a certain rpm, requires a certain amount of airflow. Heads capable of flowing more than that, are overkill. Having written that, I will agree that I would rather have a head that achieves my target flow with 0.500" lift, rather than 0.600" or 0.700" lift. This would allow me to use a milder cam, and a more reliable valve train. Other head characteristics are equally important to power production however, such as port velocity, port contour and combustion chamber design. The new heads have advantages over the Motorsport heads in that respect, and computerized dyno software does not do well in factoring those things into the equation.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...On a milder engine the gap between the heads will close and may well be influenced by what headers and intake are available....

The gap between heads closes because on a milder motor, the race heads are overkill, at lower lifts they don't flow any better than the non-race heads. Or to put it differently, the mild motor can't use the race heads to their potential.

Your comment about headers & intake brings to my mind a good point. The combination of parts is what needs to be considered, not just the heads alone. And to have a feel for the combination, you need a good idea for what the owner wants to accomplish. Most of the time, for the majority of readers here, I'm not writing to somebody who wants cutting edge performance, their combinations are going to be milder. The DTBB needs the cutting edge info too. Who else is going to teach us about beehive springs if not you?!

Usually, before I make specific recommendations, I ask a bunch of questions, and get a feel for what an owner expects, and what aspects are most important to them, and most importantly, what the budget is. Nobody can write generalizations here and be accurate for everybody. When I write in general, I have in mind what I consider to be the average owner, somebody who wants a reasonably mild combination, good driveability, even a bit of fuel economy. Performance above 6000 rpm is not important to them. Reliability, a wide powerband and sharp throttle response being more important than a peak dyno number. When I'm asked about cutting edge performance issues by an owner, somebody who has to have 600 bhp, that sort of thing, I often refer them to you! lol...

My bottom line is that the folks here get their questions answered, the help they are seeking.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...The CHI 3V's are excellent heads but in terms of all out power production the raised exhaust port heads have an advantage....

I know how much you like the Motorsport heads. And truth be known, never forget, I do too. But the reality is, again, most readers here will never need the high port heads to achieve their goals. A second and equally important consideration is the ease of obtaining the parts. The Motorsport stuff is more difficult to locate than the parts available brand new.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...Have you verified this is true, Goerge? I tried following up on the rumor that CHI was going to price match the Edelbrock 2V head price but found it wasn't true...

One of the 2 companies had a sale recently, I forget which one. Perhaps that was the pricing you heard about. ..I logged onto CHIs site yesterday to grab a link to a video of a Jon Kaase testimonial. While I was there I noticed the CHI had made many improvements to their web site, so I gave it a quick "tour". One price I remember is that of the 4V head; it was priced at $2050 in street performance set-up. I don't remember the other prices. I remember the 4V price because the CHI 4V head is the one I'm considering, instead of using cast iron 4V heads. However, I'm still on the hunt for the A331 intake, if I find one, I may spring for the A3 heads. In fact, if you hear of an A331 for sale, I would appreciate you keeping me in mind.

your friend on the DTBB

An aluminum head is the sign of an intellegent person.
The CHI dual plane intake looks really interseting for a Pantera. It would be interesting to see if it makes power like the Funnel Web.
I think these may be Australian horse power quotes, like the Dollar.
They don't mention at what pressures the flow numbers are obtained.
The Motorsport numbers were at 25in-mg. Everyone else seems to use 28in-mg.
With enough pressure any head will flow. If one can extrapalate the A3 to 28 then they outflow them out of the box. Who said the A3's were being run out of the box, stock? The C3's certainly aren't.
Also there aren't too many street engines (I didn't say any) that will use a .700 lift cam.
The important numbers are more likely the .500 to .600 lift numbers.
The term "support" needs to be defined and the 4v heads "supported" something like 680hp.
The highport "advantage" is line of sight. Exactly what that is worth on a street engine is contraversial at best.
The Webers don't know the difference.
I know that there are many choices now, but I suppose that my original point got lost somewhere, the point was HP/$.

The CHI 3V heads from John Kaase were $2250 ready to go with valves and springs matched to the cam. (for refference).

Gary

Gary,

The CHI heads ? Do they sell the matching intake and which do you choose ?

Ron

Yes Ron, I got the CHI intake and plates for the 400:

> The 3V port is 2V in size, but it is raised approx. 3/8" so that the roof
> of the port is the same height as the roof of a 4V port. If it were raised
> another 3/8", it would approximate the location of the ports in the C302 Ford
> Motorsport heads.

A bit of a nit but the 3V port is larger than a 2V. It's also larger than
an (unported) C302 port (and of considerably different shape). It's close
to the size of a ported 2V outline of the turkey pan. The unported 3V is
approximately the same size as my ported C302B (218 vs 217 cc's). I've got
a CHI 3V intake here. I should take some pictures with gasket overlays to
show the differences.

> John Kaase won the 2004 Engine Masters competition with CHI 3V heads.

Remember that a number of heads were excluded from the competition.
A3's, C302B's, Yates, Brodix BF300's and Blue Thunder to name a few.

> Realistically, a 2V head that supports 600 bhp is about all anybody needs!

Saying that an AFD 2V head can support over 600 HP out-of-the-box is
somewhat misleading. What you really care about is how will a given head
work on your engine relative to other cylinder heads. You can have 4 or 5
different heads all of which can support 600 HP but on a given engine
there can be 150 HP between the best and the worst. When I was designing
my engine, I ran a series of detailed simulations using Dynomation for
2V, 4V, CHI 3V, A3, C302, C302B, and Brodix BF300 heads. Except for the
CHI 3V all the head flow and dimensional data were from heads that I or
someone I know had personally flow tested. For the CHI 3V, I had to rely
on CHI provided data which I've not independently verified. Except for
the 2V heads, all of these heads are capable of supporting over 600 HP on
the right engine. That includes the stock 4V heads. I know of a dyno
verified stock displacement 351C with unported (NHRA legal valve job only)
open chamber 4V heads that made 630+ HP.

Though both could support 600 HP, on my particular engine, the difference
between the 4V heads and the C302B was huge. Over 100 HP difference at the
peak and the C302B's were better across the RPM range. The C302B's, C302,
and A3 heads were all fairly close with the Brodix and CHI 3V around 40 HP
less at peak. While the C302B's were ported they were near identical in
port volume to the CHI 3V heads (217 vs 218 cc's). By looking at the claimed
flow numbers for the AFD, CHI and Edelbrock 2V heads, I can see they will
all make less power than the CHI 3V's.

I guess this is a long-winded way saying that I disagree with your statement
that "a 2V head that supports 600 bhp is about all anybody needs". If I can
60 or 70 HP through heads alone, it's worth it to me. Increasing RPM and cam
timing come at a durability cost but better airflow does not.

On a milder engine the gap between the heads will close and may well be
influenced by what headers and intake are available. For instance, a
CHI 3V head coupled with Scott Parker's intake may not make any more
power than a 4V head and a Blue Thunder intake if the better intake of
one combination is enough to offset the better heads of another.

The CHI 3V's are excellent heads but in terms of all out power production
the raised exhaust port heads have an advantage. I believe both AFD and
CHI are working on race heads with raised exhaust ports to address this.

> the alloy 2V heads from CHI & AFD, which sell for around $1800 to your door
> in the US

Have you verified this is true, Goerge? I tried following up on the rumor
that CHI was going to price match the Edelbrock 2V head price but found it
wasn't true. Assembled and delivered cost was still several hundered dollars
more than the Edelbrocks from the vendors I contacted. Anyone know if this
has changed or what AFD's current pricing is?

Dan Jones

> But you go on picking nits! I wouldn't have you change a bit, I love your
> engineer's eye for detail.

If I'm coming across argumentative, I don't mean to. I appreciate your
posts. I'm just trying to add a different perspective. I hate to see
guys give up power they don't have to.

> all the head the majority of enthusiasts will ever need.

What were we talking about again? :-)

> You were making a point by citing the 4V motor's bhp,
> the same way I'm making a point by saying the 2Vs will support 600 bhp.

I meant to imply both were misleading to the point of being useless.

> Other head characteristics are equally important to power production however,
> such as port velocity, port contour and combustion chamber design. The new
> heads have advantages over the Motorsport heads in that respect,

As far as port velocity and port contour go, the C302B still has the edge.
The higher location of the ports, especially the exhaust port, allow a
better port contour. Based upon my testing, the heads flow more for the same
cross-sectional area and at a lower lift so velocity is higher. The CHI/AFD
heads may have a chamber design advantage but I'm not convinced of that.
The C302B and Brodix BF300 series already have a very good quench chamber.

> computerized dyno software does not do well in factoring those things into
> the equation.

Agreed.

> The gap between heads closes because on a milder motor, the race heads are
> overkill, at lower lifts they don't flow any better than the non-race heads.

That's not been my experience with A3 and C302B heads. They flow better
than the non-race heads at all lifts. Better than 4V, Aussie 2V, CHI 3V,
and EM-185, etc. Some race heads do indeed trade low lift flow for higher
lift flow but not the Motorsport high ports. That's one of the reasons I
like them so much. They make a great street head.

> Or to put it differently, the mild motor can't use the race heads to their
> potential.

That's one way of looking at it but they can often still benefit. On an
otherwise identical motor (377C with Isky 280 flat tappet hydraulic street
cam), switching from iron 4V heads and Strip Dominator intake to C302B
heads with matching Motorsport intake brought the powerband in 1000 RPM
sooner due to the higher velocity ports of the head/intake combo.

> Your comment about headers & intake brings to my mind a good point. The
> combination of parts is what needs to be considered, not just the heads
> alone.

Very true.

> The Motorsport stuff is more difficult to locate than the parts available
> brand new.

You forget the C302B's (in the form of the Brodix BF300) and matching intakes
(Edelbrock Victor AHII and Kelly Coffield IR EFI) are still avalable new.

> One price I remember is that of the 4V head; it was priced at $2050 in street
> performance set-up. I don't remember the other prices.

I highly recommend anyone considering those heads get the upgraded valves.
I know of two guys (one a friend, the other a Pantera owner who contacted me)
who have had the 5000 series valves they use fail on them.

> However, I'm still on the hunt for the A331 intake, if I find one, I may
> spring for the A3 heads. In fact, if you hear of an A331 for sale, I would
> appreciate you keeping me in mind.

Will do but Dennis at PPC seems to buy everyone he can get his hands on.

> They don't mention at what pressures the flow numbers are obtained.
> The Motorsport numbers were at 25in-mg. Everyone else seems to use 28in-mg.

The Ford Motorsport catalog data was indeed taken at 25 in Hg and even
then is conservative. The heads I've flowed have all been at 28 in Hg.

> If one can extrapalate the A3 to 28 then they outflow them out of the
> box.

My unported A3's were quite good on the flow bench, better than the
CHI 3V heads in terms of raw flow numbers but that's not an apples
to apples comparison because of the A3's larger ports. My C302B
heads were essentially the same port volumes and were better than
the A3's or the CHI 3V's.

> Who said the A3's were being run out of the box, stock? The C3's certainly
> aren't.

A3's flow quite well out of the box so some people run them as is.
C302B's were desiged to permit custom porting so most of those are
ported. That said, Kelly Coffield's Brodix BF300 C302B clones did
pretty well unported (and with small valves). IIRC, they were about
equal to the CHI 3V's in flow but had smaller ports (196 cc's).
I've still got a set of new-in-box A3's (and matching A331). If and
when I get around to using them, I will have a conservative bowl port
job done on them. Not much metal needs to be removed, just a subtle
reshaping, to make a big improvement. I'll probably have the guy
that did my Buick heads have a go at them. He did an amazing job
on those small port heads.

> The highport "advantage" is line of sight. Exactly what that is worth
> on a street engine is contraversial at best.

Not controversial at all in my book.

Dan Jones

Well the pictures answer some questions Comp2. That manifold is up there in the stratosphere. How high is it?
I don't suppose that you tried the 180 manifold?
That one at least looks like it will come close to fitting under the screen? Will the highrise spider fit under the roof?
I'll bet ya a nickle it doesn't come within 20 hp of the high riser.

My unported A3's were quite good on the flow bench, better than the
CHI 3V heads in terms of raw flow numbers but that's not an apples
to apples comparison because of the A3's larger ports. My C302B
heads were essentially the same port volumes and were better than
the A3's or the CHI 3V's.

Dan isn't this statement contradictory?
If the C3 has been ported to the same volume as an A3 port, then for all intents and purposes it is an A3 port isn't it?
The only thing the porter could have possibly have done was straiten the runner and play with the short radius?
It is the cross sectional area of the port that effects the port velocity. The length of the port couldn't have been changed, and the volume is the same, if it walks like a duck...it's a duck.

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
That manifold is up there in the stratosphere.

You missed the point. This gets the carb up out of the way so you can see THROUGH the manifold!

quote:

Originally posted by comp2:

quote:

Originally posted by PanteraDoug:
That manifold is up there in the stratosphere.

You missed the point. This gets the carb up out of the way so you can see THROUGH the manifold!

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooHHHHHHHHHHH!

Sorry about tacking on the earlier post. I fat-fingered the editor.

> Dan isn't this statement contradictory?
> If the C3 has been ported to the same volume as an A3 port, then for all
> intents and purposes it is an A3 port isn't it?

No. The port volume of my C302B's is the same (217 cc vs 218 cc's) as
the CHI 3V, not the A3. My A3's and C302B's both outflow the 3V's but
the A3 has larger ports.

> Will the highrise spider fit under the roof?
> I'll bet ya a nickle it doesn't come within 20 hp of the high riser.

The CHI 3V intake looks very nice to my aero engineer eyes. The plenum
has the sorts of rounded blunt shapes that work well at subsonic speeds.
Kaase told me he spent some time adpating a Yates intake to his EMC entry
only to have the CHI intake make better power.

Dan Jones

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
Sorry about tacking on the earlier post. I fat-fingered the editor.

> Dan isn't this statement contradictory?
> If the C3 has been ported to the same volume as an A3 port, then for all
> intents and purposes it is an A3 port isn't it?

No. The port volume of my C302B's is the same (217 cc vs 218 cc's) as
the CHI 3V, not the A3. My A3's and C302B's both outflow the 3V's but
the A3 has larger ports.

I believe the A3's are 235cc. They are borderline too big for a 351.

Which reminds me, my Ford insider told me that the 351c was designed and tested as a 377.
I asked him why then do they call it a 335 series?
He shrugged and said, "that's Ford for ya'".

The A3's are better (I wanna say perfect so badly) for a 377 c.

I think that my B3 heads were right at 217/218 cc's. I like the A3's a lot better.

> I believe the A3's are 235cc.

According to the Motorsport catalog, the A3's were nominally 241/134 cc's
intake/exhaust. B351's were 223/106 and C302's 212/95. Kelly's Brodix
BF300's were 196cc's.

> They are borderline too big for a 351.

Yes. They are smaller than 4V's but still larger than most 351C's need.

> Which reminds me, my Ford insider told me that the 351c was designed and
> tested as a 377.

The 1968 casting date aluminum Cleveland stuff was quite interesting.
4.1" bore, six bolts per cylinder, etc. Usually ran with a stroker
crank. Ford also had 325 cube 289/302's running around early on as
well as 4 bolt main aluminum block 377 cube 351W blocks (topped off
with Gurney Weslake heads). If only...

> I asked him why then do they call it a 335 series?
> He shrugged and said, "that's Ford for ya'".

Ford does a lot of that :-)

> The A3's are better (I wanna say perfect so badly) for a 377 c.

That brings up another point. There is such a thing as a port too small
relative to the cubes. Generally you shoot for a port velocity around
0.6 Mach. Some of the big cube strokers start pushing that number and
are better off with a larger ports.

> I think that my B3 heads were right at 217/218 cc's. I like the A3's
> a lot better.

Were these unported to unported comparisons? In my simulations, the
A3's and C302B's were pretty even.

Dan Jones

I remember the A3's as 235, 100 on the exhaust sounds right.
I didn't keep a note bood on the A3's. It wasn't important then.
Next time I have them off, I will cc them.
Again I remember the B's as right around 217. The exhausts were smaller then the A3's, needed help and were opened up to A3 size.
They didn't feel "cleveland" to me. They were kinda like driveing a 2v truck with a 2.78 first gear. Maybe I just couldn't switch back and forth with the two engines in my head.
The A3 is much more of an explosive set up. The B3 isn't.
Of course one can't argue with the area under the graph, but that doesn't have to make me like it.
I apparently like peak HP more then the "bread wagon" steady type.
It's my programing. Every real high performance engine I have ever driven is peaky and that's what I expect. Even the sound is different. I suppose the peaky engine goes supersonic at some point and that's what I hear( and like).
I suppose that these are old school aditudes but I'm not racing for a living and I am playing with yestertech for a reason.
If I didn't want it, I wouldn't be playing with a Pantera for sure.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...If I'm coming across argumentative, I don't mean to...

Not at all Dan!

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...I'm just trying to add a different perspective ...

Understood, needed, and appreciated! None of us can be all things to all people. You and I also write at different levels. I think its a great balance. This is not a one or two man show, everyone who contributes is appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...I hate to see guys give up power they don't have to...

LOL.... I figured that out a long time ago.... lol...

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...You forget the C302B's (in the form of the Brodix BF300) and matching intakes
(Edelbrock Victor AHII and Kelly Coffield IR EFI) are still avalable new...

Good point. You're right. I did forget. Frankly, if a two plane manifold AND something like the A331 intake were both available for the C302/BF301 heads, they would be a more universally applicable alternative to the iron heads, and I would recommend them a lot more. The choices in intakes are just too few AND too damn high. lol....Hey Kelly, are you still looking for ideas for intakes?

A thought occurs to me, the intake gasket for the 2V head & C302 head, have identical verticle port heights & port centerlines, the 2V port is just a bit wider. The floor of the 2V port is 9/16" lower than the floor of the C302 port. So if the Edelbrock Performer 2V were raised with spacers to align its runners with the C302 ports, the carb mounting pad would only be 9/32" higher. Hmmmmmm........

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel_Jones:
...I highly recommend anyone considering those heads get the upgraded valves. I know of two guys (one a friend, the other a Pantera owner who contacted me) who have had the 5000 series valves they use fail on them....

I've no experience with the Ferea valves. Up until now I've never read a complaint. I'm curious, what was the mode of failure? Dropped valve head?

your friend on the DTBB

quote:

Hey Kelly, are you still looking for ideas for intakes?

George, Always interested in what people desire in the way of induction systems.

Dan, thanks for the intake "plugs" in the previous posts. I'll send you an update this weekend.

Kelly

> I've no experience with the Ferea valves. Up until now I've never read a
> complaint. I'm curious, what was the mode of failure? Dropped valve head?

Ferrea makes a bunch of different types of valves: the 5000 Series High
Performance valves, the 6000 Series Competition valves, and the 1000
Series Competition Plus valves, along with a number of specialty valves.
The 5000 series are inexpensive street performance valves meant for flat
tappet hydraulic and milder solid lifter applications. They are not meant
for race type roller cams. My friend was using the 5000 series in drag race
motor with solid roller cam and popped the head off. He was using the wrong
valve for the application. He switched to the 6000 series competition valves
which are meant for roller cam useage and has had no further problems.
I'm not aware of the circumstances surrounding the second failure. I was
contacted by a Pantera owner who had one fail on him. As I recall, it was
a flat tappet cam street type motor the owner used for track days and the
failure occurred while idling in the pits.

> Dan, thanks for the intake "plugs" in the previous posts. I'll send you
> an update this weekend.

Sounds good. BTW, I made a new photo album on my website with pictures of
351C EFI intakes:

http://www.bacomatic.org/gallery/album04?page=2

It has some of the pictures you've sent previously.

Dan Jones

Ferrea no longer manufacturers valves. They closed thier US plant last year.
They are basically valve brokers putting thier name on imports from Israele and India.