[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

Norwalk, $500 on the track.

That is to complicated for AQ to understand. You might want to simplify it for him.

[GTO Dan]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

That is to complicated for AQ to understand. You might want to simplify it for him.

$$$

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by GTO Dan

$$$

Lol.... I think the cars being the same color will send his brain into a tailspin.

[Slick]

From Dick Fulton's Post:

A few months ago, amid the ongoing controversy of CV-1 versus Edelbrock wideports, we agreed with Roland Racing to do some independent testing. As I stated before, Jim Sammons did not ask for a blind endorsement - he asked for an honest evaluation. Most objective people realize that somewhere between all of the hype and all the bashing, lies the truth.

We decided to do back-to-back dyno tests using our stock block 475 motor. We did our best to make this a fair comparison using the same short block, headers, carb, rocker arm ratios and equal compression ratios.

The Edelbrock heads have obviously been ported into the wideport configuration and are fitted with titanium valves. The intake is a ported Victor. The CV-1 heads had some bowl blending, but otherwise untouched "as cast" ports. They were supplied with standard issue stainless valves. The intake was ported and gasket matched locally. Both valve trains consisted of Manley springs, T&D 1.7 ratio shaft rockers, 3/8" pushrods and Crower rollers.

The shortblock is a filled 455 block, billet main caps, lifter bore braces, 4.22 bore, 4.25 stroke, forged crank, aluminum rods, gas ported pistons, light ring package, custom roller cam (lobe .445, .440, duration 276, 284) standard firing order, good oil pan, crank trigger, dry decked, 11:1 compression. Accessory pieces include an external water pump, stepped headers, vacuum pump and a Shaker prepped 1150 carb. Nothing too exotic here.

No jetting changes were made to either combo. Because the CV-1 heads were new to us, we moved the timing around to see what it liked. That's it. We simply warmed the motor up, adjusted the valves and made some pulls.

Our dyno pulls were from 5500 rpm to 7700 rpm, with a test range of 5500-7500 for average torque and horsepower comparisons. Those who have been to the dyno know that there are raw numbers and corrected numbers. Corrected numbers are calculated to correct the raw numbers to what they would be at sea level. Many race teams only look at the raw numbers, as the correction factor is not always dependable. Raw numbers are rarely as high as corrected numbers and are therefore not nearly as exciting, but they are real. For the sake of comparison, we will show the average raw numbers. For the sake of interest, we will show the corrected peak horsepower numbers.

Again, the test range was from 5500 rpm to 7500 rpm.

Raw average torque and horsepower for the wideport E heads were 539.8 and 659.8 respectively. Peak corrected horsepower was 781.0 @ 7100 rpm.

Raw average torque and horsepower for the CV-1 heads were 562.8 and 694.3 respectively. Peak corrected horsepower was 815.7 @ 7000 rpm. It was still making 805.8 horsepower @ 7500 rpm

I think all of our jaws dropped when we saw the raw numbers come up. Seeing a set of unported street heads outperform our ported race heads was impressive, to say the least.

Clearly, this test will not put to rest all of the doubts, but it certainly shows great potential. Just think what they will do with a little port work. If time allows, we will test this motor in the car this fall.

Dick Fulton

In the same thread, from Mike Leech:

mike leech's Avatar
mike leech mike leech is offline
Ultimate Warrior

Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,825
Default
very nice write up! good job on keeping it as fair as possible as well. And kudos are in order for the cv1 "gang". As i have stated before the heads obviously have potential....and this looks to be a fair comparison. Question...Same cam and headers?

I said i would be the first to say good job, and i am. Good job!
__________________
EHTTFMF!


Being dead, it is not hard on you. You don't even know you're dead. It is hard on everyone else that is not dead.
BEING STUPID WORKS THE SAME WAY! The rest of us suffer.

In the same thread from John Marcella:

Did you do this for the E-head combo as well?(Timing)

Also what was the chamber volume of each set of heads? What was the fuel curve like fore each set of heads?
What was the cross section of the victor at the plenum? Stock? (don't want to be testing the manifold, just heads right?)
Why was the CV compared to a old E-head and not a High Port or PP or Tiger?

I know im on the list of Haters, but im not really.
I think the CV has its place, and have actually recommended it to people a few times with in the last year.


If the Victor Cross section at the plenum was adequate, and fuel curves were "ON" for both, and timing was "ON" for both, and camber volume was the same for both.............................................. ....Then I say CONGRATULATIONS to the CV camp , GOOD JOB!
__________________
John Marcella
Marcella Manifolds Inc.
[email protected]
ph. 248-259-6696

[Slick]

When Dick Fulton had Edelbrock heads on his car, you had nothing but praise for him, his beautiful car, skill and accomplishments.

Now that he is running different heads he is, in effect, called a liar, stupid, and suicidal.

You can't help telling Chief what he would be doing if only he was as smart as you are. LMFAO!

You people of integrity should be running the FBI.

[GTOGEORGE]

Originally Posted by Slick

When Dick Fulton had Edelbrock heads on his car, you had nothing but praise for him, his beautiful car, skill and accomplishments.

Now that he is running different heads he is, in effect, called a liar, stupid, and suicidal.

You can't help telling Chief what he would be doing if only he was as smart as you are. LMFAO!

You people of integrity should be running the FBI.

That’s funny! Well said, good correct info.



GTO George

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by Slick

From Dick Fulton's Post:

A few months ago, amid the ongoing controversy of CV-1 versus Edelbrock wideports, we agreed with Roland Racing to do some independent testing. As I stated before, Jim Sammons did not ask for a blind endorsement - he asked for an honest evaluation. Most objective people realize that somewhere between all of the hype and all the bashing, lies the truth.

We decided to do back-to-back dyno tests using our stock block 475 motor. We did our best to make this a fair comparison using the same short block, headers, carb, rocker arm ratios and equal compression ratios.

The Edelbrock heads have obviously been ported into the wideport configuration and are fitted with titanium valves. The intake is a ported Victor. The CV-1 heads had some bowl blending, but otherwise untouched "as cast" ports. They were supplied with standard issue stainless valves. The intake was ported and gasket matched locally. Both valve trains consisted of Manley springs, T&D 1.7 ratio shaft rockers, 3/8" pushrods and Crower rollers.

The shortblock is a filled 455 block, billet main caps, lifter bore braces, 4.22 bore, 4.25 stroke, forged crank, aluminum rods, gas ported pistons, light ring package, custom roller cam (lobe .445, .440, duration 276, 284) standard firing order, good oil pan, crank trigger, dry decked, 11:1 compression. Accessory pieces include an external water pump, stepped headers, vacuum pump and a Shaker prepped 1150 carb. Nothing too exotic here.

No jetting changes were made to either combo. Because the CV-1 heads were new to us, we moved the timing around to see what it liked. That's it. We simply warmed the motor up, adjusted the valves and made some pulls.

Our dyno pulls were from 5500 rpm to 7700 rpm, with a test range of 5500-7500 for average torque and horsepower comparisons. Those who have been to the dyno know that there are raw numbers and corrected numbers. Corrected numbers are calculated to correct the raw numbers to what they would be at sea level. Many race teams only look at the raw numbers, as the correction factor is not always dependable. Raw numbers are rarely as high as corrected numbers and are therefore not nearly as exciting, but they are real. For the sake of comparison, we will show the average raw numbers. For the sake of interest, we will show the corrected peak horsepower numbers.

Again, the test range was from 5500 rpm to 7500 rpm.

Raw average torque and horsepower for the wideport E heads were 539.8 and 659.8 respectively. Peak corrected horsepower was 781.0 @ 7100 rpm.

Raw average torque and horsepower for the CV-1 heads were 562.8 and 694.3 respectively. Peak corrected horsepower was 815.7 @ 7000 rpm. It was still making 805.8 horsepower @ 7500 rpm

I think all of our jaws dropped when we saw the raw numbers come up. Seeing a set of unported street heads outperform our ported race heads was impressive, to say the least.

Clearly, this test will not put to rest all of the doubts, but it certainly shows great potential. Just think what they will do with a little port work. If time allows, we will test this motor in the car this fall.

Dick Fulton

In the same thread, from Mike Leech:

mike leech's Avatar
mike leech mike leech is offline
Ultimate Warrior

Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,825
Default
very nice write up! good job on keeping it as fair as possible as well. And kudos are in order for the cv1 "gang". As i have stated before the heads obviously have potential....and this looks to be a fair comparison. Question...Same cam and headers?

I said i would be the first to say good job, and i am. Good job!
__________________
EHTTFMF!


Being dead, it is not hard on you. You don't even know you're dead. It is hard on everyone else that is not dead.
BEING STUPID WORKS THE SAME WAY! The rest of us suffer.

In the same thread from John Marcella:

Did you do this for the E-head combo as well?(Timing)

Also what was the chamber volume of each set of heads? What was the fuel curve like fore each set of heads?
What was the cross section of the victor at the plenum? Stock? (don't want to be testing the manifold, just heads right?)
Why was the CV compared to a old E-head and not a High Port or PP or Tiger?

I know im on the list of Haters, but im not really.
I think the CV has its place, and have actually recommended it to people a few times with in the last year.


If the Victor Cross section at the plenum was adequate, and fuel curves were "ON" for both, and timing was "ON" for both, and camber volume was the same for both.............................................. ....Then I say CONGRATULATIONS to the CV camp , GOOD JOB!
__________________
John Marcella
Marcella Manifolds Inc.
[email protected]
ph. 248-259-6696

Do not worry. Someone will be a long shortly. As soon as they drink some Kool Aid and put on their secret decoder ring to tell you what all of that actually means.

Stan

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Do not worry. Someone will be a long shortly. As soon as they drink some Kool Aid and put on their secret decoder ring to tell you what all of that actually means.

Stan

... ain't that the truth ...

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

You there yet lol or is that coming up?
Nice pics.

... yes, very soon ...

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Twin, are you drunk ? I stopped drinking over a year ago. Try it, you will feel better, argue less, its a good thing.
I doubt there is any more space in your head to rent out, its all taken.
Lot of good porters out there, you must not suck at it because you would not be employed where you are.
I forgot that DFs 474 was a 455 block, that is really impressive. 7.71 is moving with a 455 and wide ports.
Big bearings and all.
Let me guess, Bruce called you up and sicked you on me just like he did in the call out thread. Same MO.
I am sure the new engine will make big power, how can it not.
Nice look stuff BTW.

... Drunk ?? ... You can't be serious, believe me i need no substance of any kind to be a total azzhole towards someone like you, all i need to do is read some of your retarded drivel that you post month in and month out, over and over and over, but nice try ...

... and no, Bruce did not sick me on you, i posted because i decided to ...

[Dragncar]

Question for Bruce, Twin whoever. DFs head comparison thread using 455 block, 4.25 crank was from 2013. His U tube run of 7.71 @ 175 MPH at Norwalk was in 2011.
Is it safe to assume his 7.71 run was with the 455 block and Wide Ports ?
Just yes or no please.

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

Question for Bruce, Twin whoever. DFs head comparison thread using 455 block, 4.25 crank was from 2013. His U tube run of 7.71 @ 175 MPH at Norwalk was in 2011.
Is it safe to assume his 7.71 run was with the 455 block and Wide Ports ?
Just yes or no please.

...the 7.71 run was at Byron in November which was 40 degrees that day, the car never ran that time again, an other than that one November run the Wide Port combo ran 7.80's, the funny part is that in 2010 Fulton was running those times lol ...

... try noticing everyone in that video is wearing jackets ?? certainly not Norwalk conditions ...

... Fulton's last pass at Norwalk with the CV-1 engine with a hurt cylinder coasted from the 1000ft to a 7.62 in horribly hot weather conditions, and only 1.23 60ft, the car is capable of 1.15 60ft times, but now we have traction issues ...

... so no it's not safe to make that assumption ... try again

[LiL Jack]

That’s an awful big tire to be having traction issues, I’m not sure if they make bigger ones?

Was that a 475” motor that ran that fast?


Didn’t Fulton just run a low 80 a few weeks ago?

[Dragncar]

OK, here is what I got.
455 block. 4.22 bore, 4.25 crank (comes out to 475.55, not 474) 475 cid, ol E very basic wide ports wide ports 7.71 best ever, usually 7.80 That is very good, impressive. But the block on borrowed time.

Aftermarket block, 4.35 bore, 4.5 crank and new ported CV-1s and required intake, 7.61
Closest is a tenth difference but usually two tenths difference.
Is that about right or is there some other factors missing ?

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by Dragncar

OK, here is what I got.
455 block. 4.22 bore, 4.25 crank (comes out to 475.55, not 474) 475 cid, ol E very basic wide ports wide ports 7.71 best ever, usually 7.80 That is very good, impressive. But the block on borrowed time.

Aftermarket block, 4.35 bore, 4.5 crank and new ported CV-1s and required intake, 7.61
Closest is a tenth difference but usually two tenths difference.
Is that about right or is there some other factors missing ?

... the stock block combo ran 8.30's genius ...

... the 511 ran 7.80's in the heat, one time in 40 degree air it went 7.71 and never again, we have yet to see good air like that, the CV-1 "7.62" coaster run was in really bad conditions with a hurt cylinder...

... there's no doubt the CV-1 combo makes more power, we just gotta get a handle on the leave, changes are being made don't worry ...

... the question you should be asking is what does Fulton's car run once we get the 60ft's down to the 1.teens like it should be ?? ... but that doesn't fit your bs narrative now does it ...

[Anderson Port Development]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

That’s an awful big tire to be having traction issues, I’m not sure if they make bigger ones?

Was that a 475” motor that ran that fast?


Didn’t Fulton just run a low 80 a few weeks ago?

... he has to run King Street trim for that race, more weight, full exhaust and dot tires, even in the finals the car spun badly and still went an .82 i believe, during the last even t there was an ignition problem that was causing the engine to pop during the run which obviously didn't help, but he has found the issue and fixed it ...

... the EHead combo has never run that fast at Brainerd during the King Street event ...

[Scott Stoneburg]

Also...I heard Fulton is using less nitrous now. Or is that not true?

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by Scott Stoneburg

Also...I heard Fulton is using less nitrous now. Or is that not true?

And it’s always a head wind.




Good for Fulton, that’s awesome he is out racing and having some fun.

[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by Scott Stoneburg

Also...I heard Fulton is using less nitrous now. Or is that not true?

He uses less N2O and making more power.

[GTO Dan]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

...
Good for Fulton, that’s awesome he is out racing and having some fun.

Racing is fun? Surprising based on these threads.