[johnta1]

old DCI thread

[b-man]

Originally Posted by johnta1

old DCI thread

Discussion in the Race forums where he begins by outlining all the traits of a Pontiac V8 engine design that makes it less than ideal as a serious race engine.

So there’s little relevance in that thread to this discussion about his new heads that aren’t designed for full-on race applications, other than to point out the comments that Pontiac people are reluctant to open their wallets which unfortunately is true in many instances.

Very few posts here in the last 5 years, the majority of those being classified postings either selling or looking for parts.

Introduction of his new cylinder head project would have welcomed here just as was done in this Lobby thread where an innovative new product was warmly received. Plenty of questions were asked and answered and criticism offered without getting any feelings hurt:

https://forums.maxperformanceinc.com...d.php?t=871015

[J.C.you]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Anyone know what Don is talking about?

I believe it’s the valve placement deal and nit picking like old women.

Give the guy some credit, he’s already brought two heads to the Pontiac market with success.

[Dragncar]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Maybe because his stated valve sizes and offsets won't work with the vast majority of existing pistons?


He just posted that a stock RAIV head flows 200 CFM on the intake side and 180 on the exhaust.. You going to question that or roll with it?

It does all seem to be a little strange.
Plenty of Pontiac folk have balked at just buying round port headers to run E heads so there is reason think many more will have a problem with pistons. Much bigger deal.
Pontiac guys do not have a reputation for throwing money around.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by J.C.you

I believe it’s the valve placement deal and nit picking like old women.

Give the guy some credit, he’s already brought two heads to the Pontiac market with success.

Thanks JC .... Not sure it's nit picking or if that makes one a hater. I'd bet he makes changes and designs the heads so they'll work with production pistons.

If he does, do the old ladies get royalty checks .... Or just a "thank you"

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Steve C.

Skip, It is my understanding on the Edelbrock head the center-to-center valve spacing increased from stock 1.98" to 2.030" (.050").




.

100% correct. The exhaust valves were moved .050 over. That is why e-heads come with 1.66 exhaust valves because a 1.77 valve would hit the valve pockets on most pistons that were made in the 90s when they were released.

[Skip Fix]

So High Ports the same spacing as E heads?

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Skip Fix

So High Ports the same spacing as E heads?

Yes

[Skip Fix]

Thanks so I assume same pistons work E heads to High Ports?

[Steve C.]

The High-Port heads come standard with a 2.200" intake valve and 1.65" exhaust valve.


.

[slowbird]

Originally Posted by Skip Fix

Thanks so I assume same pistons work E heads to High Ports?

Yes for the most part but like Steve said HP comes with 2.20 intake so if pistons are designed for 2.11 you'll have issues

[J.C.you]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Thanks JC .... Not sure it's nit picking or if that makes one a hater. I'd bet he makes changes and designs the heads so they'll work with production pistons.

If he does, do the old ladies get royalty checks .... Or just a "thank you"

Define “production pistons “ are you talking about oem stock pistons?

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by J.C.you

Define “production pistons “ are you talking about oem stock pistons?

Any "shelf" style piston such as Icon, TRW, Sealed Power, Keith Black, Auto-Tec, DSS, Wiseco, Diamond, CP Bullet, JBP/Ross.

A good number of these pistons will not allow the use of a 1.77 valve in an Edelbrock RPM head or Kaufman Hi-port. They're designed for factory valve spacing and 2.11/1.77 valves. Some of them might accept a 2.20 valve but things are going get real close when one uses a 2.19 valve and starts moving it around.


I posted a picture of what had to be removed from a valve pocket on an aftermarket piston designed for a Edelbrock head using a 2.1250 valve. It shows the amount of material needed to allow for a 2.18 valve offset .050.
.

[J.C.you]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Any "shelf" style piston such as Icon, TRW, Sealed Power, Keith Black, Auto-Tec, DSS, Wiseco, Diamond, CP Bullet, JBP/Ross.

A good number of these pistons will not allow the use of a 1.77 valve in an Edelbrock RPM head or Kaufman Hi-port. They're designed for factory valve spacing and 2.11/1.77 valves. Some of them might accept a 2.20 valve but things are going get real close when one uses a 2.19 valve and starts moving it around.


I posted a picture of what had to be removed from a valve pocket on an aftermarket piston designed for a Edelbrock head using a 2.1250 valve. It shows the amount of material needed to allow for a 2.18 valve offset .050.
.

It’s called hot rodding 101. Nit picking in my opinion. That type stuff is minor. Cleaning up a valve pocket.
If I wanted a set of faux pas aluminum 48s for instance to get 75-100 more hp out of my combo making a 2 gram cut on a valve relief wouldn’t nix my decision to buy the aluminum 48s. It’s not like having to install new pistons and rebalance.

[PAUL K]

Originally Posted by J.C.you

It’s called hot rodding 101. Nit picking in my opinion. That type stuff is minor. Cleaning up a valve pocket.
If I wanted a set of faux pas aluminum 48s for instance to get 75-100 more hp out of my combo making a 2 gram cut on a valve relief wouldn’t nix my decision to buy the aluminum 48s. It’s not like having to install new pistons and rebalance.

Good to know how you feel. I think most potential buyers of these heads would prefer a direct bolt on. My opinion, the more resistance it takes to complete a project lessons the chance of the project getting done. You end up with a shop full of stalled projects and have very few achievements to hang ones hat on.

I'm still betting this "nit picking" gets Don to make changes to his original plans and the heads are produced as a bolt on.

Hopefully some others will share their opinions and thoughts whether they'd prefer a bolt on head or something that makes ten more horsepower and requires piston modifications.

[Stan Weiss]

JMO If the intake seat ring will take it offer the head with an optional 2.11 intake valve. The SBC have had a 60 40 head for sometime.

Stan

[Formulajones]

I'm not super picky about valve placement since I'm doing a new build anyway but I do see the attraction for most that want something that bolts on without fuss.
Either way I'm good with it.

[72projectbird]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Hopefully some others will share their opinions and thoughts whether they'd prefer a bolt on head or something that makes ten more horsepower and requires piston modifications.

Well, that would make us haters, since I'd prefer a head that bolts on without having to modify pistons.

[jhein]

Originally Posted by PAUL K

Good to know how you feel. I think most potential buyers of these heads would prefer a direct bolt on. My opinion, the more resistance it takes to complete a project lessons the chance of the project getting done. You end up with a shop full of stalled projects and have very few achievements to hang ones hat on.

I'm still betting this "nit picking" gets Don to make changes to his original plans and the heads are produced as a bolt on.

Hopefully some others will share their opinions and thoughts whether they'd prefer a bolt on head or something that makes ten more horsepower and requires piston modifications.

I think it depends on how many sets of heads he wants to sell. There are probably many potential buyers who would just want to do a top end upgrade rather than essentially a full rebuild.

[Stan Weiss]

It seem people want this head to just be plug and play.

So I am just curious what would you be replacing if you bought these heads

1) Basically stock or close to stock Cast Iron Heads

2) Highly ported Cast Iron Heads

3) Someone else's Aluminum Head

Stan