[440GP69]

Originally Posted by PONTIAC DUDE

The chamber isn't stock.
That and the titanium intake valve in the next chamber over.

Too far away to see the ports. Sweet.

looks like the Intake side was unshrouded From what i can see Which isn't much LOL

[steve25]

That valve spring looks to be just a tall outer and a flat wire inner, not what I would say would be for a soild roller set up?

[PONTIAC DUDE]

Originally Posted by 440GP69

looks like the Intake side was unshrouded From what i can see Which isn't much LOL

You would be surprised what unshrouding a valve can do. Loos to be both intake & Exhaust. Thru great strides with wet flow testing.
Same deal with valve train weight or we all would be running steel retainers. LOL.

Same deal with opening up heads to bore sizes and unschroulding valves. Ask Roland how much unshrouding increased flow in his CV-1 heads and never touched the ports.

[Half-Inch Stud]

I could argue that heavier Retainer hangs the INTAKE valve open farther at hi RPM...for more power.

I will SUGGEST that the fella that cuts his INTAKE valve down may earn the effect of FLOW at 0.150" additional valve lift. <-- I made it up but this stands the test of doodling with geometry. <-- Should be verifiable by observation as for how flow numbers are generated at discrete valve lift settings. <-- is in agreement P-Dude's above post is correct. <-- only do this to the intake valve excess beyond the contact seat.

My 48 Heads would probably sit the Intake valve BETTER with 1.96 valve. <-- verifiable by observation for how the 2.11" valve contacts the head. <-- looks profoundly dumb to me, as if I left a ton of potential flow on the table.

Last time I checked, the Valve face is the basic flow restriction. Have a nice day HIS

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

I could argue that heavier Retainer hangs the INTAKE valve open farther at hi RPM...for more power...

Yeah, you could argue that- and have an attentive audience with some circle track guys looking for a "way around" limited-lift rules (they've been doing this for years now). But most of us prefer controlled valve action, with no "extra lash" being induced by valve float, and the attendant short life of various valvetrain pieces due to them crashing back into each other!

[440GP69]

Square Lobes also wing them 2.11's at higher revs "Mainly Flat Tapper's" but i guess thats left to the SS and comp Eliminator guys

[pro-tour79]

some of the edges in the port look to be a bit more rounded of from stock...acid ported??

[steve25]

Lets remember that even in the 9 second range we are still looking for the best average flow numbers, just like a SS racer, the problem with a big cid motor is going for too much added low lift flow will just lower the onset of the port limiting velocity factor and possibly mask the effect of added lobe nose duration from the cam.

[Half-Inch Stud]

YET for us 1/4mile D-Port folks, them heavy Intake valves only fly away to 300CFM+ near the shift points right?

[440GP69]

Originally Posted by Half-Inch Stud

YET for us 1/4mile D-Port folks, them heavy Intake valves only fly away to 300CFM+ near the shift points right?

LOL

[steve25]

Could you translate? The sub titles on the bottom of my monitor are not working!

[Dragncar]

If GTOKID wants to put up a pick of the HOs and brag about them fine. But put up a some real pictures. Just throwing up that picture is not good enough.
No one is running stock HOs with TRWs (or junk yard parts) in the 9s in a 69 GTO that is not all glass and plexiglass.
There is just something he is not telling us.
I am sure he knows something I do not but I have been running a ported HO engine with TRWs, Warrior on pump gas in a 69 GTO for a long time now. Best I have seen is 11.16 @117. And that is pretty good. I know there is a few more tenths in it if I want to spend the dollars to chase it but there is not a 1.25 seconds left on the table.
What is the record for 71-72 455 HO headed GTOs ?. That should tell you what a un ported HO engine should do.

[David Holmberg]

And yet no one found it interesting that Ryan was running 9.60's NA in a 3200lb firebird with home ported D ports...

[John Bailey (GTOKID)]

8 to 1 compression shifting 5600 with 6000 rpm chip. Steel Valves = 9.86 @ 134 MPH!!! 3030 lbs. On the Moroso slide rule its only 550 HP!!! People its not that HARD!!! But I have to say... I am surprised at the times some of the race cars run on PY. I think Carbs, cams, and converters are a good place to look for more power.

[screamingchief]

Originally Posted by David Holmberg

And yet no one found it interesting that Ryan was running 9.60's NA in a 3200lb firebird with home ported D ports...

Just because a given set of heads are "home ported",that does'nt necessarily mean they're gonna be "junk" heads as a result of that being the situation.

Some of the "home" head porting work I've seen has been better than some of the other "pro" work I've come across.

All depends on the who's "home" porting work,and who's "pro" porting work were talking about here.

And the only true way to quantify that sorta comparison would be to flow both sets of heads on the same bench and evaluate the results of both sets of heads.

I've said from my first post on the previous thread that the combo counts for a lot of this sorta success,but certainly not all of this is "dumb luck" either.

Lots of details could be shared to help remove some of the mystery behind all this,but I think those fellas are just having too much fun stirring the pot over this deal.

JMO/FWIW.

Without good specific info like chamber CC's,deck heights,and that sorta stuff,it's hard to come up with precise CR numbers,further without solid head flow numbers and no head info like port volumes or CSA numbers or such,just too much has to be taken for granted on this to make any grand "leaps of faith",the information given on this specific combo has always seemed somewhat intentionally vague for some odd reason,usually stated as "stock",but just what the hell qualifies as "stock" when this hardware is over 30 years old???

And for the record,3030 lbs. is pretty damn light for an A-body,my '70 Lemans/GTO "stock" rear suspension car has a gutted interior,glass 1 pc. FE,glass 5" cowl hood,and glass decklid,and it would probably have a hard time making that weight with an all iron motor and me in the drivers seat,but that's partly my fault too,though without me it might be close to that.

So the car is pretty light IMO too.

But if your gonna tell me I could run nines in that car with only 550 HP,I know your not talking HP @ the crank,HP @ the rear wheels,maybe.

More like 575 to 600 HP @ the crank to make that happen.

[Skip Fix]

My Moroso slide shows only about 15-20 HP more than my pump gas motor. But it's 720lbs lighter!

[John Bailey (GTOKID)]

I did not say ANYONE could do it...I said its not that hard!!! Jim and his car is well Known around here and he is a Bracket racer. He is not trying to do anything but run the 10.00 number and go rounds. BTW its a back 1/2 car and hooks very well.

[D. Miles]

GTOKID... I think it's useless to try to convence these guys!!! They just don't and just ain't gonna get it period! The only way they'll believe is if we start mailing out plane tickets so they can come see for themselves. I know what guys like Jim Hostler let alone Bruce Maichle, Neil Owens, Jack Gaydosh, John Langer, Scott Rex and Paul Spotts are capable of just by what they've taught me. All of these guys where going fast and turning good numbers before Edelbrocks before Wenzlers and waaayyy before IA and IA 2 blocks. When I first met Jim, he was pitted next to a guy whos car I saw run for the first time a few weeks earlier, a brite yellow 68 Firebird, his name was Jack Gaydosh, he had a 455 (production cast block and crank) with a set of #16 D-ports running in the 8's Jim was going 9.90's with a stock block 455 a nitrated cast crank SD rods and pistons a solid flat tappet Lunati cam under a set of mildly ported (250 cfm's I think they were) RA IV's, now this was 10-12 years ago before the "Langer style" oil pan with the removable crossmember and rack & pinion steering and such improvements. Since then with some tecnological advancements and some weight loss, why isn't 9.80's-9.90's doable with 8.5:1 compression and a 240ish cfm head. I need some reasons why it CAN'T be done vs. reasons why more is needed to do what Jim and a few others ARE doing and HAVE BEEN doing for some time now... Thanks D. Miles