[Milepost]

Originally Posted by cgeise

Are you saying the guys working on these dont know what there doing - aand are Not getting there the right way ???????

Consider this Curt.... Most head porters will agree to this statement Chad Speier has on his Home Page....The Flowbench Conspiracy:


"I have had the opportunity to learn from some of the best porters in the industry. Just like grinders, calipers, and even a Sharpie, are tools of our trade, so is a flowbench. In some circles you will find debate that a flowbench isn’t a viable option for developing a port and making power. While I honestly believe it is not the end all, if you know what your looking at and how to apply the data your seeing, it’s a start and good things will happen!

I have also heard the debate that some develop ports without the aid of a flowbench. While this might be true, I wonder what kind of R&D and track expense was encountered in that endeavor? I wonder how many customers are the R&D and don't know it?

I feel with proper use of a pitot tube, and the proper use of some simple math, you can develop a port that will make power and set records. I believe that a flowbench is the lifeblood for a pitot tube. Other devices are of great help. Flow balls, string, even a car antenna! I’m not sure how one can visually look at a area and think that the area is too fast, we need to slow it down. I feel that every means available should be considered in development. If you have flowbench data vs. track results, you can build a data base that will prove successful each and every time.

I also hear that CFM isn’t critical. Well my friends, that’s simply not true! If you have a port that has 2.50 inches of minimum area, and it should move 325 CFM, but only moves 310 CFM, that is a problem! I want the port to flow the proper amount of air for the area available. When you have the proper amount of area needed for your engine combination, each and every time you move more air, it WILL make more power. Now I’m a big believer that the velocity profile vs. the port volume vs. the air moved, is key to a efficient port that will perform as it should. CFM isn’t the first thing to use in choosing a cylinder head, and it’s not tops on the list, but it is critical. WHEN IT COMES TO CYLINDER HEADS, PORT SHAPE, LOCALIZED VELOCITY, AVERAGE VELOCITY AND THEN CFM ARE IN THE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE IN MY DEVELOPMENT.

Now the flowbench itself. Oh boy have I had a battle with this! All I can say is if you own a set of plates and your bench shows it to be off, FIX IT! The equipment is only as good as the operator, and the knowledge of that person. We use a SF600 equipped with a PT Black Box II and Port Flow Analyzer software. Also in the shop is a very powerful, custom all electronic, PTS orifice bench that is used in development to pull higher depressions on the port for further advancements in port shape."

[65nss4spdGTO]

Originally Posted by cgeise

Are you saying the guys working on these dont know what there doing - aand are Not getting there the right way ???????

Not at all, just funny how things can get spun. I'm pretty sure this head will make some strong power. Will it be the best head? Will it be better then other heads that are available. Only time will tell. The only thing we do know for sure is it will be one of the most expensive Pontiac cylinder heads available.

I commend the few that are stepping up to develop this head.

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

[john marcella]

Originally Posted by 65nss4spdGTO

Not at all, just funny how things can get spun. I'm pretty sure this head will make some strong power. Will it be the best head? Will it be better then other heads that are available. Only time will tell. The only thing we do know for sure is it will be one of the most expensive Pontiac cylinder heads available.

I commend the few that are stepping up to develop this head.

Calvin Hill
Hill Performance / Mondello Tech Center
708-250-7420

I dont think any one will claim it to be the best head. As far as race heads go, IMO, i think its just another almost for Pontiacs. But i think its a real nice almost. I expect this head to make pretty good HP #s. My HP goal is set and only time will tell.
But you are right the cost, castings are not cheep, will have to be cnc cut, seat registers cut and seats and guides installed. All this adds up. But if they can make the power right out of the gate i think it will be worth it to people. But at the same time i dont think its really any more than a lot of the alternative castings for those that are going after higher HP levels.

[gene simmons]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

I heard a major vendor has a cnc program already that goes 450 cfm. And the release date is sometime around early summer.

And have heard of a set going 480 cfm.

Those damn rumors!
Come on Jack,we don't race flow benches.

[john marcella]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

I heard a major vendor has a cnc program already that goes 450 cfm. And the release date is sometime around early summer.

And have heard of a set going 480 cfm.

I will post my results if a few weeks and in a couple weeks after that they will be available if there is any interest. When they show up, IM ON IT!

[LiL Jack]

I am sure there will be on a few cars before or shortly after Norwalk.

[cgeise]

John sleeps with his grinder in hand

[cgeise]

I agree completly

[pastry_chef]

Originally Posted by cgeise

I agree completly

except you think oval ports are superior in all circumstances... LOL

[cgeise]

Originally Posted by pastry_chef

except you think oval ports are superior in all circumstances... LOL

I still stand by the statement - a smaller oval port - as compared to a square port -- wil flow better - read more efficient ,than a square port - there is less velosity gradient in the oval than the square port - so - IF DONE CORRECTLY - a smaller oval will perform the same as its larger square brother.

[Milepost]

Originally Posted by cgeise

I still stand by the statement - a smaller oval port - as compared to a square port -- wil flow better - read more efficient ,than a square port - there is less velosity gradient in the oval than the square port - so - IF DONE CORRECTLY - a smaller oval will perform the same as its larger square brother.

I agree. An oval port of the same CSA will outflow a rectangular port. That is not to say a square port can't be made to flow well. Given the valve geometry, architecture and size of the engine ( Big Bore Strokers) you sometimes have no other choice but to make the ports square to get the needed CSA for large or high RPM race engine. BBC guys know this all to well trying to feed a 632 cu in with 24 deg heads.

[Ron H]

Sorry if this is off base.

But I am curious. Until today, after the explosion and prior to all that, all part development of Pontiacs, but particularily heads; Which one has sold, been worked, desired, ran, drug through the mud, and performed to the max potential of the piece that we Pontiac Enthusiasts have enjoyed?

RA 2
RA1V
RAV
6x
SD
E Heads
KRE D Ports
Tigers
CV-1's
Wenzlers
E Pro Ports

And I mean exactly this. How many of the possible heads to be ran on a Pontiac block have been pushed to the limit of their potential for making power? Takin to the point of "This Port Shape makes the most of this casting and it's unchangeable features and obstacles?

And I go one further for the f*nk of it.

Have a matched short block, cam, intake, carb, headers, stall, gears, tires and chassis all are there to the utmost? How many of "The Whole Picture" have been done?

I'd say, none? As long as the envelope is being pushed and someone is widdling on a shape, turning a wrench or thinking about it, the greatest ever port, part, piece, degree has yet to be developed. Nothing has truly been optimized to a maximum limit. Maybe I'm an optomist. But as long as people are trying to figure it out, it will be figured out. No matter what it is. There is always more to bring to the table.

It may be a small market. It is what it is.

We all want to make the best of what we are doing. If not, we wouldn't be doing it.

There is alot of passionate people here who believe in what they do. What is being worked on, no matter what it is, should be applauded, not stepped on, over, around or through.

Thanks to all who try to advance and push the envelope, no matter what it is. If it weren't for them, there wouldn't be mail to be delivered.

It really is time to quit swinging dinks and regurgitating the ego trips of months before and give the banter a rest.

Sorry for the rant. I digress.

[slowbird]

Just my opinion but I bet the Pro Ports and Tiger cost about the same in the end. The high end Tigers that I know of have had things moved around which adds cost. The Pro Ports don't really need things moved but require more porting time which adds cost. All parts and pieces cost roughly the same so that's a wash. Which one will make the most power, I really don't know. But in my opinion the 2 will be pretty close.

[slowbird]

Bob or Lil Jack do you know what the engine is going into? Curious about the kind of car this thing will be run in.

[Robert C.]

Curt,


I am sure your hit the nail on the head. He is one of the best head porters out there.

[Jeff Kinsler]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Bob or Lil Jack do you know what the engine is going into? Curious about the kind of car this thing will be run in.

its going in some car that weighs around 2500 lbs. thats all i know.

[PRO511]

THE CAR IS A 1993 GRAND PRIX -

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by slowbird

Bob or Lil Jack do you know what the engine is going into? Curious about the kind of car this thing will be run in.

some street type car, with a sticker on the back window saying "F slowbird and F Kinsler".















LOL, what Jeff said.

[Jim Robertson]

Sorry I have been away for a while. Tree trimmers took out my internet connection. I know it is a weak excuse.

Making some good progress on these. We are happy enough that tracing will commence very soon. Lots of details to work out when taking these from the box to a bolt on piece.

These are right at 370cfm at .500" valve lift with a 2.3" valve and 3.5 sq in in the vicinity of the pushrod.

Will be posting progress on PY as we move through the work.

[Jim Robertson]

Tracing on these is complete. Port size/shape at the manifold flange will allow a Victor, a BOP, or an AP Tiger intake. Forward progress, so far so good.