About Us

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 01:22 AM

Quote:

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 ...

WARPed · 07-31-2016, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john marcella

Sure give me a call on Monday, I take cash or credit .

'Build a better mousetrap and they will buy it' as they say.

Scott Roberts · 07-31-2016, 08:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john marcella

Sure give me a call on Monday, I take cash or credit .

On lil Jacks behalf, will you take a pair of Visner heads on trade in?

Stan Weiss · 09:51 AM

Quote:

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

Stan Weiss · 07-31-2016, 09:48 AM

Quote:

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

Tom Vaught · 07-31-2016, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anderson Port Development

... 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 would say, based on the statement above that you have met your original goal with flying colors.

I would also agree that everything that John M posted fits with the Cylinder Head discussions I had years ago with my Boss who did the first Ford Aluminum Canted Valve Boss 302-351 race cylinder heads. He proved it with actual dyno testing (for NASCAR engines) that where you put the valves, how they are canted, how much they are rotated, and where you put the spark plug makes a big difference in the performance of the heads. You screw this up by even a little bit and you get an average head. Mirror Image combustion chambers/heads did not work well on a Ford Engine. They needed to be the same.

That being said, some people like Kelvin Poe and Marcella/Leech can make anything work.

Looking forward to seeing Fulton and Don at DCI post up some strong numbers at Norwalk for their heads.

Tom V.

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 09:54 AM

Quote:

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 · 07-31-2016, 10:58 AM

Quote:

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 ...

john marcella · 07-31-2016, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anderson Port Development

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

We all watch, they win races ! And go a lot higher than 9k. Don't get me wrong im not a fan of Hemi valvetrain either but it works. Plus it is not what I was suggesting!

You see one of my least favorite valvetrains every day, your boys symmetrical Port head, hate that rocker to pushrod angle. And it works out just fine don't it.

Now 481x , that's valvetrain!!!!

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by john marcella

We all watch, they win races ! And go a lot higher than 9k. Don't get me wrong im not a fan of Hemi valvetrain either but it works. Plus it is not what I was suggesting!

You see one of my least favorite valvetrains every day, your boys symmetrical Port head, hate that rocker to pushrod angle. And it works out just fine don't it.

Now 481x , that's valvetrain!!!!

... yeah, my brain went to our 6 X 14 rocker based system, duh ... lol ... i forgot the new Hemi isn't that type of set up, but i'm awake now, Bill's got some eggs and sausage in his gut now ...

... and 481X's are bad dudes ...

Brandn74 · 07-31-2016, 08:12 PM

Good job Bill.Keep up the good work my man.Oh yeah you think it's capable of 1300-1600 hp?

mike leech · 07-31-2016, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandn74

Good job Bill.Keep up the good work my man.Oh yeah you think it's capable of 1300-1600 hp?

Just can't help it? LOL. Sigh....

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike leech

Just can't help it? LOL. Sigh....

... i think 1600hp is a bit lofty ...

Brandn74 · 07-31-2016, 09:32 PM

i was just trying to give a little cushion for the future....

mike leech · 07-31-2016, 09:40 PM

C'mon. 1300 is right out with a 2.190 intake valve. RIGHT THE FXXK OUT OF THE QUESTION.

But its you guys story so you tell it. Have a cvI na combo at norwalk. We can have fun.

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike leech

C'mon. 1300 is right out with a 2.190 intake valve. RIGHT THE FXXK OUT OF THE QUESTION.

But its you guys story so you tell it. Have a cvI na combo at norwalk. We can have fun.

... What ??? ...

... I'm not saying the 2.190 valve head will make 1300hp if that's what you mean ....

mike leech · 07-31-2016, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anderson Port Development

... What ??? ...

... I'm not saying the 2.190 valve head will make 1300hp if that's what you mean ....

I know that bill. But the idea that some think its even possible. Sorta silly.

Look me up at norwalk.

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mike leech

I know that bill. But the idea that some think its even possible. Sorta silly.

Look me up at norwalk.

... I think he's just thinking the head in general ...

... But will do ...

Brandn74 · 07-31-2016, 11:08 PM

Not hard with a 52 jet

Anderson Port Development · 07-31-2016, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brandn74

Not hard with a 52 jet

... Lol true ...

Menu

About Us