[61-63]

These are going on a show/street car but were mentioned in one of Jim's threads recently. These heads had been ported previously in their lives but somewhat poorly according to Jim, someone had pulled the pinned studs and then tapped the holes by hand so the studs were all over the place, and then two stud bosses had broken out and had been brazed, so they were a project.
Jim cleaned up the porting, modified the chambers which I don't think had been touched, and sent one head to T&D to see if they could make a shaft rocker setup for them, which they did do. They now flow 293.4i and 236.8e @ .800, and 280.8i and 211.6e @ .600 which is about the lift they will be used with.
Jim asked that I not post a picture of the flow sheet since it has info on that is proprietary to his porting work.

If there are questions re the porting work he will have to answer them if he chooses to.

The shaft rockers were a special order job but I understand they will now be in the T&D catalog. They stamped 53240 on the ends of the bases so I assume that will be the part #.

[61-63]

More pictures. The chambers are now 77.6 ccs.

[steve25]

Nice work and great flow numbers, and a lot of work also!
Looks like you should have a easy 650 hp on tap now!

[PAUL K]

Awesome nice work! What size valves?

[prostreet64]

Maybe it is just the angle of the photo but the exhaust valve looks to be larger relative to the intake valve than the typical 2.11/1.77 deal.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Like. Did the exhaust really need all that porting?

[Gary H]

Great work! Probably use a single profile cam? What are they going on, and what intake will you use?

[61-63]

To respond to several questions here 127s had 2.02 and 1.76 valves and that is what Jim put in these. I'm considering several engine possibilities but think probably I'll put them on a .060 over 421 block (433) with a 9.5 compression ratio. I have the cam it is a Lunati 20510713 hydraulic roller ground on a 108lsa. The 20510713 has 243/251 @ .050 duration I think it is.
With the 1.65 rockers valve lift will be .610 or so. Carburetion will be dual quads on either an 859 or bathtub intake. Desktop dyno says this engine will make about 550hp @5.5k rpm we will see. This will be a '63 Catalina SD tribute car not a race car. I wanted a nasty cam, some performance, and pump gas and think the above will give me that. These heads are overkill for what I am doing, especially the shaft rockers, but I wanted the sd castings and had these. The fellow who sold these to me said they had been on a running engine but then we found that the rocker studs were all over the place. I took them to Indiana Head Service and they didn't know how to fix them, so at the recommendation of Tom S. gave them to Jim Robertson and you see what he did. I put this on here as a tribute to his work he does very nice work IMO and I really appreciate his saving these heads.

[tom s]

Guys,you have to remember these were designed and built as a true race head.No heat to the intake,came with solid lifters which restricted the oil to the rockers,1.65 and 1.75s were avail from the factory.although only 2.02 intake and a 1.76 exhaust they were-are capable of good flo numbers and lots of HP.The biggest intake I have seen put in them was a 2.06.The 63 980 head was even better on the exhaust side as it has a wider bolt spread.Pretty good for heads that were on the drawing board back maybe 1960.Tom

[PAUL K]

I've never ported any 127 heads but have done a couple pairs of 980's. Going from memory they flowed right there with the RAIV in stock form and ported. Roughly 250 cfm stock and 280-290 with a decent port job... I'm sure Jim R could get a bunch more if he wanted.

Are the intake ports the same on the 980 and 127?

[tom s]

Yes,as I remember,my heads Flo 260 and they are not a max deal.In stock form the 980shad The highest I E ratio.Dave Johnson ran 9.30s many years ago at 7 lb per CI N/A.Joe Zajack and Ric Johnson ran them before the W heads.Tom

[steve25]

I don't think the 980 and 127 Intake runners are 100% the same , something with the roof in the valve bowl or something as I would have to dig out my notes.

Interestingly enough even the crummy 093 casting will top 250 Intake cfm when ported over its 185 stock numbers with a 1.94" valve , and maybe more but these numbers where before I had access to a sonic tester

[tom s]

Steve,I know they take the same intake gasket and also the same intake manifold.There might be some diff in the roof above the short turn?If it is it did not affect the angle to the intake opening.Tom

[steve25]

Yes that I know for certain, that being that the Intake port ends up in the same location on the Intake flange between both castings.

[Jim Robertson]

Thanks John for the unique opportunity to save these. A very special set of heads for sure - the Granddaddy of all the Pontiac race/hi performance heads. The flow responded to all the tweaks we did and the final numbers were a pleasant surprise. No 2.02" double hump Chevies come close. :-) We used a 5/16" stem on both and 45 degree seats. Previous porting efforts appeared to focus on the exhaust ports and the entrance of the intake ports. Then again maybe the exhaust was that good from Pontiac. Also of interest, the divider wall between intake ports was very thin as cast. as compared to 70's castings. The parting line at the common wall was visible in all intake ports so I believe these were near untouched. Cross section area at the pushrod was generous compared to 70's castings.

[taff2]

I ported a set of '69 no.16 heads years back for a n/a 400, I ground the divider walls between the ports very thin like in your pics-don't see a lot of porters doing that- makes sense to me to do it,although hand cutting gaskets to suit is a chore. I also ground the exhaust ports to a more conventional D port- all flat on the bottom.

[steve25]

The straighter you make the common wall between paired Intake ports like in Pontiacs and many others , the better your flow will be once the valve bowl is sized and shaped right, it even helps to some degree with a stock valve bowl in some D port Pontiac heads.

Reason being you do not want a high velcoity air mass to have to turn / kick over towards the push rod side wall , as movement like that is seen as a restriction by the air mass even though the port area may not be getting smaller.
taff2.
In regards to the floor of any Exh port of any lenght , once again like a Pontiac , wide is good until you get to the high point / crown short turn your dealing with, after that the floor should not be touched but the roof at that point needs to be made wide and or taller.

One of the worst things you can do to a stock Pontiac Exh port at the flange is to gasket match it to your headers!
Yes, as you port them up to gain flow numbers above 200 cfm@28" you will need to kick up the roof , but not by much, the width of the upper half of the port where it turns on its final run out the port is very important also.

Here's a shot of a 670 Exh port, take note of how wide it was made even before the roof is touched, also note where the added with grinding stops it regards to the floor.

Sorry for the short high jacking of the thread folks!

[taff2]

Looks like I got the exhaust ports backwards! The 400 made power to 7000rpm, makes me wonder how it would have run if I had the ports done properly!

[Stan Weiss]

TTT

Stan

[Dragncar]

Sweet heads. Amazing really.