Quote:
Originally Posted by cgeise
Here is a different way to ask the question -- Have the CV1 OR 2 lived up to the projections that you and others were screaming about 7 years ago - saying they are better than an e-head is a pretty low bar to jump over as it is a 20 year old casting and without a doubt really a design that was made for the street -- so, has it reached the potential that you stated or believed it would, just a question no hate or other wise.
|
Curt from my viewpoint it was intended to be a step up from a basic wideport at that point in time. That was a basic out of the box cv1 that didnt need fancy valve gear at entry level with the added bonus of its ability to use on a stock block size bore. CFM was more than the average basic wideport.
Jim would be the one to say what potential he had in mind at the time.
Pure speculation if I throw out a number.
There has been a lot of port deveopment basd on popular engine sizes and purposes. Most development wasnt to see mega flow numbers but on good flow curves suitable for likely combos. Alot of choices already digitized Most revision in the new castings was to allow for ports bigger than found in Fultons N2O build with "Max Cast" cnc heads without welding. I think that motor with a cam and possibly header change with 2-3 more points compression might hint at the NA potential. There are ports developed beyond the Max cast cnc. At what point one decides to put those ports (or even bigger) in a CV2 billet is something to discuss with Bill or Jim.
Bill is putting together a big NA motor and tight lipped on expected numbers. I'd expect strong numbers but we may not see them until its been in a suitable car and rode hard. If its better than what he expects it to do I'd expect a package will be made available and Bill will try to out do himself from there.