[Anderson Port Development]

Well guys, I had some time today to flow test a set of CV-1.1's with the 2.19 big valve and 4.340 bore CNC Chamber package, with as cast intake and exhaust ports .... I was very pleased with the results ... this thing should rock !!!!!

... we have multiple sets of these going on some qualitry engine builds so it should be a lot of fun ...

[WARPed]

looks good, any thoughts/plans with say a 2.25 or 2.30 valve yet?

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by WARPed

looks good, any thoughts/plans with say a 2.25 or 2.30 valve yet?

... actually i have another port based on a 2.250 valve, it is in the middle 460cfm range, would need the new 1.1 porters castings for it to fit though, it's a pretty deep bowl and port height ...

... i don't have one based on the 2.300 valve just yet, closest i have right now is the CV-330 which is based on a 2.325 valve which was developed on the Gen I castings ...

[JSPONT]

What degree is the CV-1's?

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by JSPONT

What degree is the CV-1's?

... 5 X 11 ...

[7T2]

11* is the primary angle- compared to the 14* angle of the '67 and later iron heads.
5* is the cant angle.. this is the important #... the cv-1 cant angle was maximized within the EIIE layout. this gives maximum valve to bore separation during lift.
as such, for every .100" of valve lift on a cv-1, the intake valve achieves almost .010" of separation off the cylinder wall. result is @ .500" lift... the valve sees a bore that is almost .100" bigger- so a 4.15" bore becomes 4.25", and a 4.35" bore is almost 4.45".

disclaimer-
this is in no way an exhorbitant claim of cv-1 performance. track results are the quid pro quo, and will be be recognized by every state except rhode island

[JSPONT]

Thank you!

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by JSPONT

Thank you!

[WARPed]

Originally Posted by 7T2

disclaimer-
this is in no way an exhorbitant claim of cv-1 performance. track results are the quid pro quo, and will be be recognized by every state except rhode island

gota love it!

[GTO Dan]

Originally Posted by WARPed

gota love it!

X2...that hilarious!

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by 7T2

disclaimer-
this is in no way an exhorbitant claim of cv-1 performance. track results are the quid pro quo, and will be be recognized by every state except rhode island

I don't care who you are that's funny.

[john marcella]

Originally Posted by 7T2

11* is the primary angle- compared to the 14* angle of the '67 and later iron heads.
5* is the cant angle.. this is the important #... the cv-1 cant angle was maximized within the EIIE layout. this gives maximum valve to bore separation during lift.
as such, for every .100" of valve lift on a cv-1, the intake valve achieves almost .010" of separation off the cylinder wall. result is @ .500" lift... the valve sees a bore that is almost .100" bigger- so a 4.15" bore becomes 4.25", and a 4.35" bore is almost 4.45".

disclaimer-
this is in no way an exhorbitant claim of cv-1 performance. track results are the quid pro quo, and will be be recognized by every state except rhode island

Everything you said here is true except for the part where you said the valve layout is maximized for the greatest valve to bore separation during lift.

Your valve angles Are relative to an XY plane. But your bore is round it has no XY plane. It sees the valve angle as 1 angle not a compound angle. This is based on the valves clocked position in relation to the bore.

You're intake valve right now is approximately in the 3 o'clock position. If your valve angle was 11 degrees with no side cant the optimum position for bore separation would be 6 o'clock position. If you had only 5 degrees side can't without the 11 degrees of valve angle included Optimum valve position would be the 3 o'clock position.
But you have 11 and 5. The 11 is dominant over the 5 so it should be closer to the 6 o'clock position than the 3 o'clock position. If both angles were the same then Optimum location would be 4:30 position, but you have 11 and 5 so of the top of my head, the best position for valve to bore separation would be approximately the 5 o'clock position. Now with that said I know it creates a valve train nightmare. But still should be nowhere near your 3 o'clock position to be anywhere near considered to be maximized for valve to bore separation.

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by john marcella

Everything you said here is true except for the part where you said the valve layout is maximized for the greatest valve to bore separation during lift.

Your valve angles Are relative to an XY plane. But your bore is round it has no XY plane. It sees the valve angle as 1 angle not a compound angle. This is based on the valves clocked position in relation to the bore.

You're intake valve right now is approximately in the 3 o'clock position. If your valve angle was 11 degrees with no side cant the optimum position for bore separation would be 6 o'clock position. If you had only 5 degrees side can't without the 11 degrees of valve angle included Optimum valve position would be the 3 o'clock position.
But you have 11 and 5. The 11 is dominant over the 5 so it should be closer to the 6 o'clock position than the 3 o'clock position. If both angles were the same then Optimum location would be 4:30 position, but you have 11 and 5 so of the top of my head, the best position for valve to bore separation would be approximately the 5 o'clock position. Now with that said I know it creates a valve train nightmare. But still should be nowhere near your 3 o'clock position to be anywhere near considered to be maximized for valve to bore separation.

... Great points for sure but the goal was not just valve to bore separation solely, it was to maximize valve separation while maintaining a zero balance valvetrain, which basically put the intake in it's current clocked position while using the factory lifter bore location ...

[john marcella]

Originally Posted by Anderson Port Development

... Great points for sure but the goal was not just valve to bore separation solely, it was to maximize valve separation while maintaining a zero balance valvetrain, which basically put the intake in it's current clocked position while using the factory lifter bore location ...

Ha, whatever ya need to tell yer self. I get the obstacle of the preexisting layout but..........

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by john marcella

Ha, whatever ya need to tell yer self. I get the obstacle of the preexisting layout but..........

... That's just the truth John, that's all ... Could we make an even better head by further rotating the vales, I'm sure we could, but that doesn't fit the original goal, which wasn't mine or yours, it was someone else's, but for all things considered the head is doing a pretty decent job so far ...
... I guess we all have our own points of view ...

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Anderson Port Development

... Great points for sure but the goal was not just valve to bore separation solely, it was to maximize valve separation while maintaining a zero balance valvetrain, which basically put the intake in it's current clocked position while using the factory lifter bore location ...

Bill,
The Chrysler 426 / Gen II HEMI, while not the greatest valve train design uses the same lifter bore layout / location as their wedge heads.

Stan

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Bill,
The Chrysler 426 / Gen II HEMI, while not the greatest valve train design uses the same lifter bore layout / location as their wedge heads.

Stan

... true, but turn that engine 9,000+RPM and watch what happens ...

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Bill,
The Chrysler 426 / Gen II HEMI, while not the greatest valve train design uses the same lifter bore layout / location as their wedge heads.

Stan

... but the most important part of that comparsion i meant to ad is the fact the new Hemi has shafts, not stud mounted rocker arms, extremely different game ...

... i was cooking breakfast, lol ...

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by john marcella

Everything you said here is true except for the part where you said the valve layout is maximized for the greatest valve to bore separation during lift.

Your valve angles Are relative to an XY plane. But your bore is round it has no XY plane. It sees the valve angle as 1 angle not a compound angle. This is based on the valves clocked position in relation to the bore.

You're intake valve right now is approximately in the 3 o'clock position. If your valve angle was 11 degrees with no side cant the optimum position for bore separation would be 6 o'clock position. If you had only 5 degrees side can't without the 11 degrees of valve angle included Optimum valve position would be the 3 o'clock position.
But you have 11 and 5. The 11 is dominant over the 5 so it should be closer to the 6 o'clock position than the 3 o'clock position. If both angles were the same then Optimum location would be 4:30 position, but you have 11 and 5 so of the top of my head, the best position for valve to bore separation would be approximately the 5 o'clock position. Now with that said I know it creates a valve train nightmare. But still should be nowhere near your 3 o'clock position to be anywhere near considered to be maximized for valve to bore separation.

John,
If I understand what you want to do correctly. There is a large group that will say it is not a Pontiac just because of where the spark plug is located.

Stan

[mysticmissle]

where the hell is Rhode Island? Is it even a state?