[Paul E]

Looking at the same heads for street use. using Hyd rollers and checking what is being done for assembly for valve dia, installed height, rocker arm manufacture and of course can they all be under a factory valve cover? Thanks for sharing info
Paul

[AC445]

How do most engine builders get 1.9 I.H. with E heads ?

[AG]

Need a 5.275" long valve.

[joes455]

Well just you see the brand new Edelbrock heads all I can say is that they are nice.The exhaust port exit is small ,but may reduce any reversion.Not sure 1.66 or 1.77 valve.Chamber is as advertised smooth and shiny.Edelbrock should have made these mods when their 1st head came out.Hope to send some pics

[Tom Vaught]

I could see a 1.77 valve on a 400 cfm E-Head but many suggest about 70% flow for the exhaust side vs the intake side.
My little 1.71" diameter exhaust valve and port flows 255 cfm at 25" of water test pressure, which would say that the intake
should be 365 cfm with no flow match issues.

How much airflow do you want out of these heads Joe?

Tom V.

[PAUL K]

Are you talking about the round-port or d-port heads? Attached are pictures of a 72cc chamber and an 87cc chamber. Both are d-port heads.

[joes455]

These are round ports Paul. Tom not going crazy no pressed tubes,something similar to my high velocity 305 -310 cfm @ 600 with 2.11 valve.I've got 1 intake port that flows real good mid numbers 212@300/244@350/260@400/278@450/[email protected]/[email protected] porting is hard to duplicate ,left angle and right angle seem to be always different

[Tom Vaught]

A good solid 300 cfm head will be fine for a 630 HP type engine and very easy on parts.
Butler builds a ton of them.

Tom V.

[joes455]

Thanks Sir,I know flow numbers are just part of the dynamics, as long as the ports are kept small and tapered.

[ponjohn]

Originally Posted by joes455

These are round ports Paul. Tom not going crazy no pressed tubes,something similar to my high velocity 305 -310 cfm @ 600 with 2.11 valve.I've got 1 intake port that flows real good mid numbers 212@300/244@350/260@400/278@450/[email protected]/[email protected] porting is hard to duplicate ,left angle and right angle seem to be always different

Are these the heads you just ordered?

What are the numbers at 100 and 200?

[Scott Stoneburg]

Nice numbers...why the change from you previous eheads in your signature?

[joes455]

Flow numbers are from the best port with previous heads ,which I would like the new heads to mimic.The previous heads were to become a semi wide port(no pushrod buldge).Then went back to original pushrod layout.Installed heads ran some 1/4 miles there was always a ticking that wouldn't stop from valve train.Removed heads found pushrods were taping the bronze inserts,also noticed a lot of reversion.When I went to wide port I didn't have a flow bench.Anyways after opening the port to make way for the much bigger entrance ,then going back to the original entrance the port ended up having a backwards taper.Now heads have been filled to regain taper towards the bowl.CS is very important.So now I have a head that full of splash zone and a chamber I mig welded up to try to create a heart shape.So this led me to the purchase of the 60609 head. I m will be reinstalling the old heads just to see if there is an improvement now that the port taper is going in the right direction.I'm still learning this porting game

[Half-Inch Stud]

Originally Posted by joes455

Here is a pic of flow bench fwiw

Practical. So i regret tossin a cracked 455 block AFTER several head gasket stencil efforts for a tabletop flow bench.

I use a brushless motor to spin 1 vacuum cleaner disk to 58,000 rpm. My 2-stage series brushless approach was the bomb for flow and depression.

[joes455]

I still have the other half, I'll give it away.I should have kept the cam tunnel intact so that a cam could be installed .

[joes455]

Today I was comparing the new style chamber to the old style edelbrock O ports I have,using modeling clay.Applied the scallop chamber to the old heads.Flow tested ,numbers went up 10-15 cfm at every .050.between .350 and .650 lift.Found the motherload of hidden flow.Now to get the welder out and start filling those 93 cc chambers with scallops. FWIW.

[ponjohn]

Originally Posted by joes455

Today I was comparing the new style chamber to the old style edelbrock O ports I have,using modeling clay.Applied the scallop chamber to the old heads.Flow tested ,numbers went up 10-15 cfm at every .050.between .350 and .650 lift.Found the motherload of hidden flow.Now to get the welder out and start filling those 93 cc chambers with scallops. FWIW.

Any photos?

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by joes455

Today I was comparing the new style chamber to the old style edelbrock O ports I have,using modeling clay.Applied the scallop chamber to the old heads.Flow tested ,numbers went up 10-15 cfm at every .050.between .350 and .650 lift.Found the motherload of hidden flow.Now to get the welder out and start filling those 93 cc chambers with scallops. FWIW.

Good Job. Maybe those Edelbrock Guys Do know a thing or three about Pontiac heads.
(Or, they had some good advice from someone.)

Tom V.

[joes455]

I've read somewhere that "the chamber is an extension of the port" I can say that with certainty it is a true statement.

[joes455]

Ok sent heads to the Butlers for hone and valve job.They suggested going 2.19 intk (fine with me)and 1.77 exh.I think the 1.77 is a bit too much ,too close to intk valve.Thinking 1.66 would be fine.What do you think?

[Tom Vaught]

Originally Posted by joes455

Ok sent heads to the Butlers for hone and valve job.They suggested going 2.19 intk (fine with me)and 1.77 exh.I think the 1.77 is a bit too much ,too close to intk valve.Thinking 1.66 would be fine.What do you think?

I used a 1.71" Ferrea Ford Exhaust Valve that was very close to the right length vs the stock 1.66" valves.

(954) 733-2505

Tom V.