[Guy Mazza]

Will, My SD ported #16's are very similar to yours. Dave flowed them for me when I picked them up, that was cool. He also flowed them w/several different intakes.
flowed @ 28" water:
.100- 65/60cfm
.200- 132/114cfm
.300- 188/148cfm
.400- 230/171cfm
.500- 262/190cfm
.600- 285/205cfm
my cam is a flat tappet w/ 271/279 @ .050 & .556" lift int/exh. I run a match ported Victor, and a 1050HP Dominator. Unfortunately due to hood clearance probs, I cant use a (needed) spacer. Im real happy w/my D-ports from SD
Merry Christmas [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]



[This message has been edited by Guy Mazza (edited 12-22-2001).]

[zedo]

Guy, how much $$ for the ported #16's ??

[Guy Mazza]

Charlie, I had these done in '98 and E-heads were just coming out, or were hard to get (I dont remember). So I had a set of #16's ported when Dave was in Calif. W/"Race port", Ferrea RA4 S/S valves, Comp cams #995-16 springs, Valve job w/guides, teflon seals, etc. was $1,338.00 (I had a discount certificate also). If I was to start from scratch now. I would consider E-heads. However Im not kickin the dog over it. For my performance level, they are just what I am looking for. We dont really have any quick 8/16 races here, so Bkt racing is it. Being the fastest guy never won me a race. So I keep trying to improve my driving while my car stays reliable & consistent w/out breakage [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Later, Guy

[Larry Navarro]

my #16 flow numbers @ 28":
.200" - 125/103
.300" - 190/140
.400" - 231/165
.450" - 251/174
.500" - 266/181
.550" - 277/185
.600" - 265/190
intake port volume 181cc
chambers 75cc
okay....there the info, sure nothing compared to the "almighty aluminum versions", but hey these numbers are VERY close to torqjunki #62's and were flowed on the same bench AND LESS than the numbers of the "out of box" heads.
so by all LOGICAL standpoint, why are so many going slower with more flow AND lift than those who use less flow AND lift.
maybe dave sober can explain...AGAIN!
my T/A GARAGE site has a few pics of the #16 d-ports in question. http://community.webshots.com/album/16587603rOyvmFCiHs

[This message has been edited by Larry Navarro (edited 12-22-2001).]

[Steve C.]

The origional post was destined to be hijacked right at the start and it was.
I agreed with Brian in the reasoning of flowing a D-port to .800" lift and I agree with Goatman it's time to move on... and yes it's boring as in 'to tire with repetition or tediousness' and unfortunatly there are only three 'channels' to choose from ( Larry this is not personal, don't take it as such please)
As to the origional topic, my '69 #16 castings reportably flowed 291 cfm @ .600" lift (big valves/raised runner/chambers modified for swirl) Tested on our SuperFlow bench here in Austin years ago, someday I'll get off my ass and remove them from the old motor to re-test them inorder to confirm the numbers.

[Jim Zeek]

HIS, what gear ratio did you plug in to get that 165 mph on a 8.79 et? My car has 4.10's with a 1.76 powerglide, 33" tall tires. Et's are 8.76 @ 154, 8.80 @153. I think Scott Rex went 165 with a 8.17 et.

[Jim Zeek]

Also, don't need 850 hp to go 8.79. I'm 2500 lbs and only make 725 hp with RAIV's done by Nunzi.

[Skip Fix]

Most of the guys who flow heads I know use a fixture for the common sized motors 4.00 SBC or 4.25 BBC(454). The most common Superflow fixture has each size on it, just flip it over for either side.A head will flow a little different on each size. With the advent of the bigger BBC bores a 4.500 may be common now.

I believe the original topic was to compare ported D ports by some of the porting gurus.I've tested some SD performance 6Xs. Nice heads, decent flow. Sure not 280 cfm on my bench.

As even Jim Hand has said comparing flow numbers between benchs is a futile task. Calibration is a big key and individual flow benchs all flow a little different. They just help comparisons on that bench. My Superflow calibration plate flows 153 cfm@10" (about 253@28"). I'd love to see some D ports pass the Superflow calibration plate by 10-20%. I'll bring it along to any test! I can also borrow the SD heads to flow at any test. A 250 cfm D port is honking anyway! That's almost a 25% increase over stock 215cfm. And 250 cfm heads are probably what are running a the 11 and 10s numbers every one is running(9s in a back halfed cars). That's all the airflow it takes to run that with the correct COMBINATION.

[zedo]

Wow, Skip, Zeek, Larry, etc, thanks guys, you rescued this thread. Steve, it may have been destined to be hijacked, but I assure you that was not my intentions. I tend to agree with Skip, most "killer" D-port heads, my notion is, will flow around 250-260 cfm. But I'm open to being proven otherwise !! I have figures on HEAVILY ported SD421 #980 heads, done by Mondello- 240 cfm. Larry N., take a look at the exhaust numbers you posted. I'm getting a notion, a car would pick up with a better exhaust port, intake flow being the same. But a 190 cfm exhaust out of a D-port, is still about 30 cfm more than stock, big improvement. Thanks for post.

On the bench comparisons, I tested a JKM400 against a Superflow600, they were within 2 cfm, both 28" benches. After a long talk with a JKM rep, he said well sealed, 28" benches, should not vary from each other, by more than 10 cfm on any day, regardless of make. Weather should not make more than a 10 cfm difference either. According to him, old benches lose their seal, start leaking, start pulling airflow in through the leaks, skewing the numbers. So they gotta be maintained/calibrated on a regular basis. I believe that's where a lot of the variation exists. Adios.

[This message has been edited by zedo (edited 12-22-2001).]

[Jack Ferris]

Im with Steve. Who gives a rats fat ass. Build your car the way YOU want it and go out and enjoy it. I swear to god I've never heard more bickering in my life.

[torqjunki]

Now that the smoke has cleared and everyone is too tired to swing, I'll add my 2cents. I have not and will not get into the D-port vs E-head debate. I use #62 d-ports because they came with the car. If it had come with E's, I'd be runnin' them. First of all, here are my flow numbers at 28".
Intake exhaust
100 66 51
200 134 103
300 197 139
400 243 168
450 261 179
500 270 187
550 263 193
The heads do not have pushrod tubes and there is no port relocation or welding or epoxy used. 2.11-1.77valves. I'm not saying this to imply that it is easy to do or is commonplace. What I will say is that big flow numbers do not guarentee better performance. You do not race the flow bench or a set of heads. Those who said combination are on the right track. Fact is that it will take just as much tuning and work to produce killer results with 320cfm E-heads as 270cfm D's. Not being arrogant, but there are many cars out there with a lot more air flow , roller cams, etc, that does not run as well as my car. Are their combos wrong??? Is mine perfect??? I don't freggin know!! Each car wears the owners signature. Do the things and use the parts you feel strongly will net the results you desire. I think this car proves you don't need to be in search of killer head flow(no matter which head you choose) to perform well.
I've got a great idea!! I have a friend who is about to recieve a set of 72cc e-heads that has been worked over by the guy who does Allen Temple's stuff. They should flow 325 or so and should be strong on low lift as well. We have discussed putting them on my car, and I think he will agree to it. If someone has a set of headers to fit the e-heads on a 69 firebird for loan, let me know and I will try and set it up. Mine are 1 3/4" primary with 3" collector. This may answer some questions or shed some light or....well OK...start some crap!! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Ockhams Electric Razor]

Hope you guys don't mind me jumping in here late:

"Most "killer" D-port heads, my notion is, will flow around 250-260 cfm. But I'm open to being proven otherwise" --Zedo

Um, maybe I'm missing something but it sure seems like you are proved wrong by about a half dozen posts in this thread alone! Why ignore the facts presented by the folks generous enough to share their flow sheet numbers?

This sounds like one of the BMF BS posts about no D-Port, as is not a single one in existence, is capable of flowing more then 250cfm @28"! That of course is just crap, it is physically impossible to make the power some have made using D-ports and only feeding 250cfms to each cylinder n/a. Besides that, I know personally guys that have ported D's to ~250cfm at home, myself included! The first set of #13's I ported, following simple directions of a very knowledgeable gentleman with a flowbench and much porting experience, I was able to obtain 255cfm @28" at .550" lift. That was my first set of I had heads ever fully ported and had flowed, done in my basement and it didn't even take all that much time nor that much grinding. There is nothing at all “Killer" about my heads, though I feel, as I'm sure many others do, that only focusing on peak flow numbers is a very narrow and limited scope of which to evaluate the worth of a set of heads by. Sorry, I don't buy the propaganda....

[This message has been edited by Ockhams Electric Razor (edited 12-22-2001).]

[Half-Inch Stud]

Zeek : 165MPH with 8.80sec: 31"tire, 3.54gear and 6300trapRPM.

Zedo: Put my motor in a 2300Lb tubecar and I would be running 10.5 at 133MPH. Optimized at using a 3.55gear and max rev at 5800RPM.
More gear allows more revs & better ET, but my MPH may suffer.

Presently, I'm running 12.0 with the trap rev at 4850RPM.......whoa, think about that.
here's more: Pump gas, 3.31gear, 48heads and a Q-Jet.

...slowbird has the highest FOMS (for 2 cars!), the Hands, torqjunki and Pontiac Dude are the next highest, then my combo.

I suggest we put either of slowbird's 400CID motors in the 2300LB tubejob and we would have 9.90's on pump gas.

Pontiac Dude's 428 motor can push 2300LBs to the 9's on 94 Octane pump gas.

The Hand' 455+ motor can push 2300LBs to the 9's, but I don't recall the fuel Octane.

Does it now seem likely to try pushing the 400 motors?

[Brian Baker]

Zedo, if I had "X" amount of flow at .600" and I had only a few more cfm over "X" at .800", why would I want to run a .800" cam? It would just create more stress on the valvetrain and no power gains would be seen. In fact it might eat up some power trying to open that valve the extra .200".

[zedo]

Brian, did you dyno or track test an .800" lift cam ? Stud, thought you were at 11.0's. Could you address the discrepancy Zeek pointed out.

Posted by Skip Fix:

"And 250 cfm heads are probably what are running a the 11 and 10s numbers every one is running(9s in a back halfed cars). That's all the airflow it takes to run that with the correct COMBINATION."

Ockham, Skip has the same "notion". If you read the original post, you'll see I asked for anyone to port this 4X head to the 270+ figures I see posted often. I didn't ask for everyone to repost their flow figures, but it's useful anyway. It shows how the D-port exhaust is down compared to intake, even after porting. Posting the numbers is one thing, but actually seeing it on a 28" bench is another. I prefer to see real world figures I can work with. So far, no takers.

[This message has been edited by zedo (edited 12-23-2001).]

[Brian Baker]

No, Zedo, I have not, whether it be on round port or d-port heads. For that matter, have you, on either?

Common sense would dictate that if there is no more perceivable flow at .800" than there is at .600", then running lifts to .800" would have diminishing returns (if any returns at all). Mac McKellar knew this about a zillion years ago, and I don't think the laws of physics have changed any since then.

[Goatman]

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water........................

Physics, common sense, and D-ports, sounds like an interesting topic thread. Also sounds like there would be little of the first two and lots of "wader n' shovel" material for the third.

Did'nt someone say, "combination, combination, combination" a while back?

[zedo]

Brian, I have never run an .800" lift cam, but always flow heads .100"-.800", cause I wanna know. Just like a girl's skirt, how ya gonna know, if you don't look up there first ? Example, V heads picked up 25 cfm from .600" to .800" It's now not uncommon to see guys running .800"+ lift cams. Even if there's no more flow up there, the cam will still spend more time opening and closing, so more average flow may result at the low-mid lift. McKellar used low lift, as Pontiac heads in stock form, don't flow more than around 210 cfm, and he wanted the cars to run 100K plus miles. We're talking fully hogged heads here, posted flow of 270 cfm. McKellar also had to warranty those motors, to people who just drove them, never worked on them, the average public. We're talking drag motors here, that get torn down regularly, or at least should be.

Goatman, I agree, sounds like this is played out. But we're free to post within Cass's rules here, and this thread ain't breaking any. Believe me guys, this offer is real. No sweat if no one wants to participate.

Merry Christmas everyone, Happy New Year.

[This message has been edited by zedo (edited 12-23-2001).]

[torqjunki]

Responding to Zedo's comment about exhaust flow being down compared to intake after porting...I don't know about everyone elses heads, but my exhaust bowls have been worked very little, and the ports have only been polished. My opinion is that anything over 78% of exhaust to intake flow will hurt performance in almost all combinations I see on this board. I think my percentage is actually around 70% and the porter said that was no accident and don't f... with it:MAD:
And on top of that, I use only 1 3/4" primary headers. As a side note...dropping the exhaust and back seat(80lbs) the car gained nothing!!

Disclaimer: If you have transformed your motor into a BBC, this will not apply to you.

[dammen8]

My race ported E-heads flow 69-71% on the exhaust side, as compared to the intake side.

Chad Dammen

Just my experience