PDA

View Full Version : New Design SC heads



seawalkersee
03-17-2005, 09:47 PM
I am not sure how far this will go, but tonight I found a site that can recast old parts. They had a 29 lincoln block and some door handles and such. I shot them an email and asked the probability and cost of a redesigned 3.8l ford head. In the post I suggested a thicker deck height and better exhaust port shape. If you are one of those guys that have some sort of knowledge about what else you would like to see, post it here and in the event they get back with me and it is a reality, I can suggest this to them.

On a different note, how much better would it be to go with a split port head and just an intake for our cars?

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
03-18-2005, 01:49 AM
so far modified single port heads outflow modified dual ports.....SO ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,Just my opinion

Birdman93
03-18-2005, 07:51 AM
what about 4-bolt mains??

seawalkersee
03-18-2005, 08:23 AM
I suppost that could also be a possibility. I dont even know if this place will want to tackle this kind of project or not but I am trying to get things started. Only if they make like ten sets of heads I think there are ten people who would love to not have to worry about thier headgaskets again.

Chris

Birdman93
03-18-2005, 08:31 AM
Ooops-my bad-thought I read blocks-that's why I suggested 4-bolt mains.

RustyUL
03-18-2005, 09:25 AM
I would imagine the casting facility would gladly cast anything that you wanted, as long as you had a 3D computer model, or better yet, a pattern. I doubt that redesign is within thier offering and if it is, it would be cost prohibitive.

BT Motorsports
03-19-2005, 02:27 AM
Chris, model the ports from an AFR head;)

Paul

David Neibert
03-19-2005, 09:32 AM
Chris, model the ports from an AFR head;)

Paul

Better yet....convince AFR to make the heads.

David

MIKE 38sc
03-19-2005, 02:20 PM
and have them cast with dual qeunch combustion chambers.

seawalkersee
03-23-2005, 11:16 PM
I still have heard nothing from these guys...Just an update :rolleyes: ...

Chris

RGR
03-24-2005, 03:44 PM
so far modified single port heads outflow modified dual ports.....SO ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,,,,Just my opinion

What kind of numbers are you seeing, because SPI heads with stock valves
outflow the BV SC heads from all reports I have seen. Well, teh stock 1.45" SPI
exhaust can get close to 180 and that is on a very accurate 'bench. Stock
valve SPI intake ports are getting at least 30 more CFM than CMRE Stage 2
heads, easily.

BTW, www.newage-tuning.com is coming out with an intake that will
put an Eaton or AR blower housing on top of a Mustang V6 and it would
be easily adaptable to an SC car... I'm doing the cams for New Age and
the base kits will be getting around 400 BHP with SPI heads. I consulted
on the intake design, it will be pretty basic but still better than an SC intake.
I call the SC intake manifold the "pancake intake" for obvious reasons :D



Chris, I'd be willing to help if you ever get anything going, sounds like FUN!

Edit: FIXED LINK!

David Neibert
03-24-2005, 03:55 PM
What kind of numbers are you seeing, because SPI heads with stock valves
outflow the BV SC heads from all reports I have seen. Well, teh stock 1.45" SPI
exhaust can get close to 180 and that is on a very accurate 'bench. Stock
valve SPI intake ports are getting at least 30 more CFM than CMRE Stage 2
heads, easily.

BTW, www.newagetuning.com is coming out with an intake that will
put an Eaton or AR blower housing on top of a Mustang V6 and it would
be easily adaptable to an SC car... I'm doing the cams for New Age and
the base kits will be getting around 400 BHP with SPI heads. I consulted
on the intake design, it will be pretty basic but still better than an SC intake.
I call the SC intake manifold the "pancake intake" for obvious reasons :D



Chris, I'd be willing to help if you ever get anything going, sounds like FUN!


RGR,

The newage link doesn't work.

Please tell me more about the intake manifold. Got any pictures or concept sketches ? Made for bottom exit blowers ?

David

seawalkersee
03-24-2005, 04:11 PM
Yeah...It sounds pretty good. I actually have a set of these heads already. Course now I have to get new headers...I HATE FORD ENGINEERS...If we could have just had them pull their heads out of their @$$ before they put the final touches on these heads back in 83.

Chris

RGR
03-24-2005, 04:24 PM
RGR,

The newage link doesn't work.

Please tell me more about the intake manifold. Got any pictures or concept sketches ? Made for bottom exit blowers ?

David

Yeah, the new age site might be down or I gave the wrong URL, I'll check.

The intake is a bottom exit design, but has a designed-in (last I knew)
possiblilty for an IC, water-to-air. I may have some concept drawings, but
on my other computer so it'll be like tomorrow before I can show you. It is
really basic though, no big deal as far as design goes. Just a KISS theory
mostly, simpler is better for boosted intakes in most cases. We are reducing
pulley speeds to get the boost down to ~8 PSI right out of the housing,
and with a cam hope to hit over 300 RWHP. I have marketing rights and
am speccing and selling cams for the venture, and were the deal to fall thru,
I could probably get Constantin Andreev to allow me to proceed on my own
but I'd need help or have to re-do many of his efforts. They are using a
fabricated intake, but I canget anything that I can CAD draw cast here in
town for $15,000 start up costs. That would be 25 people paying around
$600-700 for intakes and that is a lot of people to get it going but not
impossible. I could get fabbed ones done for about that anyway, one at a
time. Or there is a CNC-machined possibility that I have considered for a
long time now, it would perhaps be easier yet but have some start up costs
as well, but lots less than casting new intakes. Either way I'd make it
universal, using adapter flanges to accept either Eaton or AR-style head
units. I think Constantin is doing a similar thing with his end of it.

If anyone wants to try, I am the SPI cam expert, my old Gen 1.5 SPI cam
is still killing the competitions latest efforts, and I have went to perhaps 5
generations now, I do not even use that designation anymore.
I have a cheap (but 200% professional!!!) TIG welding shop here that can
weld anything but the "crack of dawn" and my portion would be reasonable
too, I'd retain rights to the design but the buyer would be getting it for
near cost. Just a thought, but it would have to be later, like summer.

RGR
03-24-2005, 04:26 PM
Yeah...It sounds pretty good. I actually have a set of these heads already. Course now I have to get new headers...I HATE FORD ENGINEERS...If we could have just had them pull their heads out of their @$$ before they put the final touches on these heads back in 83.

Chris

Why new headers???

Your SC set should fit fine!!!
I've had dozens of these and single ports, they all are basiclaly the same heads.
The only differences are the intake sides.

seawalkersee
03-25-2005, 02:22 AM
I guess I should look again at mine... I thought they were a round exhaust port like the 4.6.

I see you have sparked the intrest of Dave N. Last I heard he had specially made intake gaskets for his cause they were soo big. If he is planning on a SPI swap then it would probably be a good idea. His car makes more HP then mine so if he is going to up then it would probably be a worthwhile upgrad for all of us over the 300 mark. Also I think the drivability will go up with the SPI heads as well, not that the single is bad but to flow that much better with a similar (I believe) size valve...Hmmmmm the possibilities of 400 dont seem that far away.

Chris

RGR
03-25-2005, 09:19 AM
I guess I should look again at mine... I thought they were a round exhaust port like the 4.6.

The port is small and round, I guess you could say it is like a 4.6,
but the bolt pattern is the same and the headers will bolt up.
The problem here is the header tube size is TOO BIG and you lose
velocity right after the port exit.




I see you have sparked the intrest of Dave N. Last I heard he had specially made intake gaskets for his cause they were soo big. If he is planning on a SPI swap then it would probably be a good idea. His car makes more HP then mine so if he is going to up then it would probably be a worthwhile upgrad for all of us over the 300 mark. Also I think the drivability will go up with the SPI heads as well, not that the single is bad but to flow that much better with a similar (I believe) size valve...Hmmmmm the possibilities of 400 dont seem that far away.

Yeah, the stock intake/head gaskets for SC need to be a bit bigger
for hi-flow applications, I'm exploring some options.

IMO too many setups spin the Eaton too fast, and with the new BH springs
the blower speed can peak later, like at 6500 or so, and the SC cars will
be faster thru using more RPM and having less parasitic losses. SPI heads
will just work that much better with these overall changes, they really
shine with the higher RPM applications. My little old 207 cammed SPI's
are out-powering the competition's stuff that has bigger cams :D THey
typically have spent much more on the entire combo as well!

Birdman93
03-25-2005, 09:24 AM
Here's the correct URL for New Age Tuning:

New Age Tuning (http://www.newage-tuning.com)

Did a Yahoo search and came up right away.

RGR
03-25-2005, 11:15 AM
Here's the correct URL for New Age Tuning:

New Age Tuning (http://www.newage-tuning.com)

Did a Yahoo search and came up right away.


Thanks Birdman93! I fixed my link on the first page too...

seawalkersee
03-25-2005, 07:32 PM
Yeah...the port size was what I was talking about. That still does not answer my question about the port length.

Since we are on the subject of cams, what kind of things do you do for the 4.6 as far as cams AND porting?

Chris

RGR
03-26-2005, 08:59 AM
Yeah...the port size was what I was talking about. That still does not answer my question about the port length.

Since we are on the subject of cams, what kind of things do you do for the 4.6 as far as cams AND porting?

Chris

I've done (ported) 4.6 heads, but only PI up to this point.
I have a set of 96-98 cores and a set of 92 heads that I
am cutting on for R&D. The 92-95? passenger car heads
are quite restrictive, but I had a big 92 Town Car that
ran like a scalded dog from idle to redline :D FAST>>>

For your exhaust port question, port length does matter, but you have
to consider the manifold as part of the port and tubing should not be
any larger than the valve size, even traditional scavenge theory sizing
follows that rule, but then for higher RPM's they will go ahead and use
bigger tubing whereas the ASC theory calls for the same tubing size
regardless of RPM range. The ASC theory also states that if you have
a properly working system down stream of the header/manifold you will
not need the bigger tubing to compensate for the increased RPM.

You gotta remember that I have spoken to the inventor of the ASC
for many hours and learned many things that are not on the website.

seawalkersee
03-26-2005, 02:27 PM
That is what I was initially asking about. Since the ports of the old heads are very large I was thinking of matching the size of the SPI port for 3-5" and then stepping up fo 12" or so and then going with the factory size Kooks primary size into the collector.

Chris

RGR
03-26-2005, 04:26 PM
That is what I was initially asking about. Since the ports of the old heads are very large I was thinking of matching the size of the SPI port for 3-5" and then stepping up fo 12" or so and then going with the factory size Kooks primary size into the collector.

Chris

That may work well, but there are so many variables that come into play
that it cannot be settled on the boards. Email me a phone # and I can call you
and discuss this and more. Your headers as described would work on a more
normal type arrangement, but the headers as existing would probably be better
with a sonic port, but I'm not sure. I'm really new to the sonic port theory, but
I am sure that specific cams and headers would make the sonic port phenomena
work better than just a sonic port with all stock or common aftermarket parts.

seawalkersee
03-26-2005, 06:56 PM
Im still not sure what this sonic port thing is.

Chris

RGR
03-26-2005, 07:34 PM
Im still not sure what this sonic port thing is.

Chris


It uses a small port that forces the hot exhaust to exceed the speed of
sound, and when it does the velocity evacuates the chamber completely.
The engine may experience some "pumping loss" in the early part of the
exhaust stroke, but as soon as the exhaust reaches Mach 1 the velocity
takes over and evac's the chamber. Cooler denser exhaust has a lower
Mach Number so I would assume that delaying exhaust valve opening may
be beneficial, so as to extract more power stroke and lower the escape
velocity needed for the spent charge. I'm not sure about this last part but
there is a PDR (point of diminishing returns) for everything, so testing would
show what the sonic ports really like.

seawalkersee
03-26-2005, 07:49 PM
I see a flaw in this. If it takes the pdr up in the higher rpms (which I can only assume because I dont know) which is how I read this post, then there would be no low end power. However, if the cam is ground to gain low end power then the higher rpms would not be nearley as high. Unless I am reading this backwards...if that was the case then you would need to have a cam that would be like 2500 out and not have to worry about the low end because of the speed of the air.

Does the intake follow the same pattern? Obviously not from a heat standpoint but from the flow standpoint. Can you essientally port the head backwards to try to set the intake up to flow that way? Is the 3/4 valve to port size still the same on the intake side?

Chris

RGR
03-26-2005, 08:26 PM
I see a flaw in this. If it takes the pdr up in the higher rpms (which I can only assume because I dont know) which is how I read this post, then there would be no low end power. However, if the cam is ground to gain low end power then the higher rpms would not be nearley as high. Unless I am reading this backwards...if that was the case then you would need to have a cam that would be like 2500 out and not have to worry about the low end because of the speed of the air.

Does the intake follow the same pattern? Obviously not from a heat standpoint but from the flow standpoint. Can you essientally port the head backwards to try to set the intake up to flow that way? Is the 3/4 valve to port size still the same on the intake side?

Chris


You're getting beyond my understanding of the concept, but for PDR I was
speaking of the camming from the standpoint that delaying valve opening
would somewhere hit the point that you may have to open the valve in a
more traditional way (before BDC) which interrupts the power stroke. The
longer you can keep the exhaust valve closed, the more heat you extract
from the combustion and the more power you make. Presumably the sonic
ports can evacuate the cylinder fast enough to allow a highly abbreviated
exhaust timing to be used, which makes more power, but then if the pumping
loss exceeds the extra power produced, then we have to open the valve
sooner. From what little I remember of the sonic porting, the evacuation
phase is really fast and then overlap will have to be adjusted.

I really need more info on this, but the principles will apply similar to what
I have stated above, to some point. Ideally we'd like to havea complete
180* of power stroke, but that may never happen in an Internal Combustion
engine in the forseeable future. The ASC strives to achieve similar power
stroke preservation, through different methods, but delayed exhaust timing
is part of the system on the ASC and this sonic exhaust port could help.

seawalkersee
03-26-2005, 10:44 PM
Sooooooo your saying you dont know? Just kidding. I understand a bit better now that you have said that about the power stroke. I (for some reason) was thinking of this event going on as well as a normal valve event. I do not know how many degerees are being used on camshafts as of now but I believe with the use of different cams for both sides of the head, variable cam timing, and the use of this sonic event, you could come closer to that 180* mark you want. I do believe it would be somwhere in the 8000-9000 rpm range though. It would basically involve a fairly large displacement engine with a fairly large camshaft to begin with. The reason for that is because you can get away with the larger cams and still have enough vacuum to keep that thing running. If the exhaust cam would retard and the intake would retard it would have this desired effect (I may have that backwards) but the best way would be for a totally variable cam that would advance and then retard itself with each of the four strokes, and of course because of the speed it would have to be in theory.

Uhhhhh....is anyone else on this thread going to chime in? Is anyone else learning as much as I am?

Chris

RGR
03-27-2005, 10:55 AM
http://www.sccoa.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=11888

There's the pic Mike38SC showed on the port plates post, I magnified it and
it kind of appears to be using the valve as the choke point (as many race heads
do) but then using a consistent cross section in the port.

Chris, it clearly work as a race head but it would be easily tuned for street
as well (IMO) and T.O.O.'s site seems to be using it in street engines alot.

A V6 stroker with a stock or 1.5 valve and minimal exhaust porting could
achieve supersonic exhaust port velocities, SPI heads have a smaller throat
and those on a big stroker could work nicely :D

This definitely has potential, and I am contacting my buds at NewAge for
an intake manifold this week. I'm part of the development team so I can
get it. Sonic SPI for an SC :D

seawalkersee
03-27-2005, 11:16 AM
An intake for our cars with the SPI heads?

Chris

MIKE 38sc
03-27-2005, 01:26 PM
The thing about pictures of the exhaust port is there somewhat decieveing.
The choke point is not the valve itself and is instead much further below the valve head and into the port itself. The choke point cannot be at the valve itself because a shockwave takes place once the port goes super sonic. I do not 100% understand everything that happens when this takes place but Larry says the shockwave does not cause flow problems as long as it takes place down into the port itself. I dont understand the reason for that, I just know it works.
Engines with these ports are very streetable and are not high RPM or low RPM engines because of the port design. The cam still dictates the RPM range of the engine.
Here's a set of Harley Davidson heads that Larry designed. They feature his sonic exhaust ports with high velocity intake ports(yes doing the same thing on the intake port) and dual qeunch combustion chambers. I used these heads to build an engine (1993 1340 80 C.I. EVO) for a full dresser. Power comes on very hard at 2000 RPM and pulls hard all the way to 5500 RPM and maybe beyond. I've seen that bike drag race with several bikes that have the big 103 C.I. kits on them and they just cannot hang with the dresser.
Funny thing about that story is the guy's buddy's wont ride with him anymore. Seems that they dont like getting beat with an engine thats 23 C.I. smaller than theres, not to mention the dresser weighs far more than there bikes. I have to say that was the first time I ever breathed on a Harley engine, up until that point I had only done stock rebuilds.
These heads are made and sold by Edelbrock as there Performer heads, Larry designed them. I saw the bike and its owner yesterday and he still has a bad case of permagrin 1 year later.

XxSlowpokexX
03-27-2005, 02:22 PM
Excuse my ignorance...But is SPI the late model dual port heads? Im a little confused.

Because from what I have seen thus far noone has achieved better results porting a dual port head when compared to a ported single port head.

Valve size is probably the contributing factor

RGR
03-27-2005, 02:37 PM
I believe I mentioned that earlier in one of these posts.
Prototype testing is coming soon, it is for 99^ Mustangs
but the intake itself could be adapted pretty easily to the
SC cars using SPI heads. I have dealership rights for it.
Also working with David Dalke on some head options.

seawalkersee
03-27-2005, 07:25 PM
Okay, now that I have read this post again things make more sence. For damon, this is only half of a posting that was carried on over on the port plate thread. I have since suggested we keep it on this post because it has more to do with heads. Thank you Mike for your post. I was asking those very same questions over on the other thread. What I dont understand is how that valve can break the sound barrier (the air coming out just like a combustion chamber right?).

I talked with a machinist and rece car driver today. He ownes his own shop in Liberty. He had never heard of this sonic porting. I explained it as best I could. He asked me questions like at what pressure would you be able to make the air break the speed of sound, and why, if the valve openings are the same, dont they break the barrier on the heads before they are ported?.

I have another question for this as well from the new posting. Which part of the port is this shockwave taking place? Does this happen as soon as the air passes the valve? I still want to know if the ratio on the intake side is the same 3/4 of the valve size for optimum flow?

Chris

RGR
03-28-2005, 09:59 AM
1...is SPI the late model dual port heads? Im a little confused.

2. Because from what I have seen thus far noone has achieved better results porting a dual port head when compared to a ported single port head.

3. Valve size is probably the contributing factor.



1. Yes, it is the 99-04 Muistang heads. Big(ger) round short runner,
and a longer smaller oval runner. The torque curve is from ~2500 - ~5200
RPM stock, and with a cam alone (of my design) it has made more torque
everywhere and more peak TQ, and extends the RPM range to at least 6K
but torque tapers off after that. That was with NO PORTING whatsoever.

2. The main reason you have not seen better flow #'s is for several reasons...
a) The heads flow mighty well for a 3.8 that even has a cam... I personally
prefer to lightly port the intake ports and bring the exhausts up to ~80%
give or take.
b) Many V6 shops are not good at developing ports, and the NA 3.8 does not
need much more flow anyway.
c) These heads with Stock Valves can flow over 260 CFM on the intake side,
(with a highly accurate flowbench at a very well respected {non-V6} shop)
and the flow is approaching 180 CFM with the tiny 1.45" exhaust valve. But
the flows over ~225 CFM give or take hurt low end on an NA 3.8 so I for one
suggest minimal intake side porting.

3. Stock Intake valve is 1.86 but the bowls are smaller than any 1.78" SC
bowl was ever made. The port approach makes up for this, the short runner
is a really high-port setup, while the long runner is much more conventional,
it has the injector boss cast into it's roof like single port/SC heads.


Best flow #'s I have seen for SC heads are ~240 Intake and over 200 for
exhaust ports, but that was with huge exhaust valves. No one with a proper
flow bench that I have seen has developed a BV exhaust yet, but according
to the (reliable) stock valved exhaust #'s, matching an SC record (w/1.625")
could easily be accomplished with a ~1.55" exhaust valve. The ports are that
much better, the reputable flow benches have them @ some 20% better than
stock SC ports, stock-to-stock comparison.

BT Motorsports
03-28-2005, 11:11 AM
(with a highly accurate flowbench at a very well respected {non-V6} shop)
RGR, I have seen you make reference to this on a few occasions. Can you provide some specifics of the flow bench? Also, what size bore is being used for testing?

Paul

Kurt K
03-28-2005, 11:18 AM
Edit: Oops, looks like Paul summed it up faster than I could and snuck in before me.



c) These heads with Stock Valves can flow over 260 CFM on the intake side,
(with a highly accurate flowbench at a very well respected {non-V6} shop)
and the flow is approaching 180 CFM with the tiny 1.45" exhaust valve. But
the flows over ~225 CFM give or take hurt low end on an NA 3.8 so I for one
suggest minimal intake side porting.


Best flow #'s I have seen for SC heads are ~240 Intake and over 200 for
exhaust ports, but that was with huge exhaust valves. No one with a proper
flow bench that I have seen has developed a BV exhaust yet, but according
to the (reliable) stock valved exhaust #'s, matching an SC record (w/1.625")
could easily be accomplished with a ~1.55" exhaust valve. The ports are that
much better, the reputable flow benches have them @ some 20% better than
stock SC ports, stock-to-stock comparison.

I have been enjoying reading your discussions in a couple of different threads recently; which, for the most part, have been very objective. However, I have to question the constant mention of "highly accurate, reputable flow benches". Isn't it true, that the only way to really compare flow numbers would be on the same flow bench at the same shop? For all I know, you yourself thinks that your stated numbers seem high, so you have to reinforce them repeatedly by stating "on a highly accurate flow bench". Almost like you have to convince yourself.

RGR
03-28-2005, 11:35 AM
Edit: Oops, looks like Paul summed it up faster than I could and snuck in before me.



I have been enjoying reading your discussions in a couple of different threads recently; which, for the most part, have been very objective. However, I have to question the constant mention of "highly accurate, reputable flow benches". Isn't it true, that the only way to really compare flow numbers would be on the same flow bench at the same shop? For all I know, you yourself thinks that your stated numbers seem high, so you have to reinforce them repeatedly by stating "on a highly accurate flow bench". Almost like you have to convince yourself.


Those are some good points. the 'bench in question was an SF 1020 and
the bore size was the stock 3.81" and the baseline flow #'s were pretty much
accepted to be accurate by the V6 community at large so I accept these
figures. There is a wide range of figures floating around out there and I'd
like to see these heads flowed on a flowbench that the SC community is
familiar with for reference.

The reason I'm referring to "accuracy" is that one certain ported head (SPI)
that was claimed to flow ~180 CFM with stock valves, fell off to 142 CFM
on a 'bench the same brand as mine (Audie Technology) so that one was
probably skewed a bit high. The SF 1020 bench and professional porter
only hit ~175 CFM at similar lifts. So there is a wide variance in SPI figures.
The guy who ported it just reported his #'s, but the bench is "loose" IMO.

seawalkersee
03-28-2005, 11:48 AM
Once again we go into territory that I am not all the way sure about. Can anyone varify these test numbers on the correct bore for the "accepted" flow numbers?

I went to my parents house last nite and picked up my spi heads...I will have to do some looking at them later today to see if I can see any improvements right off hand.

Chris

RGR
03-28-2005, 01:25 PM
Once again we go into territory that I am not all the way sure about. Can anyone varify these test numbers on the correct bore for the "accepted" flow numbers?

I went to my parents house last nite and picked up my spi heads...I will have to do some looking at them later today to see if I can see any improvements right off hand.

Chris


I did not port these that I am referring to, so I have no vested interest in
the numbers like that, I just have no problem with accepting them. The
heads were ported and flowed by Rick Swain of Livernois Motorsports,
he was with Roush for several years and set up his CNC porting too.
He does not do V6 stuff on a regular basis, and probably never will.

Here are the stock and ported #'s I have from the SPI heads he ported for
my tuner, and they are quite impressive on the exhaust side but he stopped
short on the intake side so the E/I ratios would be accpetable. He has stated
that ~270 CFM is probable from that intake side and more with Big Valves.
I think he even said he got over 260 on another set, but I'm not sure.

Here is the chart I got from the tuner who bought the heads...
ported

Intake Lift Flow Exhaust Flow
.100 59.5----- 46.6

.200 119.1---- 110.1

.300 171.2---- 139.4

.400 209.3---- 165.1

.500 220.9---- 176.0

.550 228.0

.600 235.2---- 177.4

.650 240.6

.700 246.9---- 176.5


CORRECTED Formatting
SPI Heads, stock flow #ís


Intake Exhaust


.100---60.6 .100---44.6

.200---113.2 .200---88.2

.300---163.9 .300---106.7

.400---195.0 .400---121.2

.500---209.4 .500---125.8

.600---217.8 .600---127.5

The email I pasted from was goofed up, and when it got to the text doc and
then here it got flopped on the I/E #'s, good eye Chris!


Stock Single port heads come in around 100 CFM Exhaust form what
I have measured and these stock baseline SPI figures agree with what
I was getting at the same time. SPI showed ~25 CFM increases over
single port/SC heads, stock to stock.

XR7 Dave
03-28-2005, 01:37 PM
I think what Robert is referring to is that there is evidence to suggest that the SF600 which is the bench which is most widely used by most racing head shops may have some "innacurracies" in the flow ranges that our small heads are seeing. I've heard that it is not a universal problem and that only some benches were affected, but nonetheless it may be an issue with some of the numbers being reported.

The whole thing isn't really an issue for the "big guys" so much because they flow at higher levels than a typical V6. Our "big dog" V6 heads just start to approach the flow levels that are starting points for most V8 head porters.

This is a much bigger issue with the NA V6 guys than us with a lot of boost. For us a slight difference in one port job vrs another can often be made up or masked over with a little more boost. :D

seawalkersee
03-29-2005, 10:43 AM
I dont know how to post a quote but I disagree with the part where you say its an issue for the big guys. I am not one to say what is correct or not on the bench. I do know that for some tests of the 4.6 heads they used a larger bore then the block has and skewed the numbers. I do not know how much of a difference that made but it was engouh that they posted a disclaimer under the flow results.

RGR for your first flow numbers on each test, are they correct? The do not seem to have the same relation as the rest on each side.

Chris

seawalkersee
03-30-2005, 10:25 AM
Also, what angles are the valves going into the heads? Are they the same on the spi head? How much does this effect the runner size (other then the distance the valve is entered into the flow path)?

Chris

seawalkersee
03-31-2005, 11:48 AM
Have I stepped into uncharted territory? Anyone there?

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
04-01-2005, 12:59 AM
Last I checked the stock 3.8 single port head outflowed a stock 5.0 liter e7 head.

Now I still disagree that you will get a better flowing head with the dual ports on the exhaust side. You just cant get a big enough valve in there.

Regardless ill believe it when I see it:O)

seawalkersee
04-01-2005, 01:20 AM
Thats Cause the dual ports are on the intake side. This is the reason I am trying to figure out a way to get more flow out of these crap head engines. I know there has got to be a cheaper way then spending two grand on machine work. I picked up an ENTIRE low milage spi 3.8 from greenleaf for like five hundred. I got to keep the heads. Now with the possibility of a company producing an intake that will use our blowers, the possibilities are going to go through the roof.

I have to get on the old lady so I can get the camera set up on this computer. Then I will send picks.

There are problems with the heads though. The water passage is in a different spot. It looks as if they have fixed the flow problem with the back two cyls. What are we going to have to fix now?

Chris

seawalkersee
04-01-2005, 02:52 PM
I hope this works. These are pics of the SPI heads for those of you who dont know what they are.

Chris

seawalkersee
04-03-2005, 02:30 AM
Someone have any questions or comments? Anyone?

I never heard anything back from the company I emailed. I can only assume that it did not work properly for I am not exactly computer savvy. Now with the new "breakthrough" of a SPI manifold that equips the engine with an eaton, I think I will concentrate my efforts on the SPI heads myself.

Please chime in here and post thoughts and questions for I do not want the information on this thread to stop here. I do not know enough about the port shapes and velocities (or the flow bench for that matter) to answer all the questions.

Chris

RGR
04-03-2005, 10:03 AM
Have I stepped into uncharted territory? Anyone there?

Chris


Sorry Chris, I have not gotten these email notifications until your last post, above...

I'll try and catch up, but David Dalke and I are working on some SC head
options, including the SPI's and I was the first in the Mustang community
to work on SPI stuff (ported the first intakes in April of 99 and the first
year was 99 for the Mustang) so I may have to confer with David before
I comment on certain things...

RGR
04-03-2005, 10:18 AM
Last I checked the stock 3.8 single port head outflowed a stock 5.0 liter e7 head.
AGREED




Now I still disagree that you will get a better flowing head with the dual ports on the exhaust side. You just cant get a big enough valve in there.

Regardless ill believe it when I see it:O)

Why can you not get a big enough valve in there?
I've worked with these heads since they came out
on the Mustang, (they were around for 2.5 years
previous on trucks) and I have cut them up, and
I see no problems in getting a big valve in there.
I have not done it personally (yet) because all NA
and blower sets I have done did not need BV yet.
New seats will be needed for valves over the 1.5'ish
range, but that is easy enough. Sonic Ports would
be easy to do on these heads since the port is so
small and efficient.

RGR
04-03-2005, 10:32 AM
Thats Cause the dual ports are on the intake side. This is the reason I am trying to figure out a way to get more flow out of these crap head engines. I know there has got to be a cheaper way then spending two grand on machine work. I picked up an ENTIRE low milage spi 3.8 from greenleaf for like five hundred. I got to keep the heads. Now with the possibility of a company producing an intake that will use our blowers, the possibilities are going to go through the roof.

There are problems with the heads though. The water passage is in a different spot. It looks as if they have fixed the flow problem with the back two cyls. What are we going to have to fix now?

Chris

The new intakes work with the revised water passages. No problem there.
The NeW intakes have either an adjustable adapter plate or a modular plate
system for different blower snouts. It can use Eaton or AR blowers, and I
have heard of people aquiring M112's for the Mustang use, so that would
probably translate over to the SC guys too.

If you would trade me the upper intake from the Mustang engine
I would help you with the porting Chris :D

I need uppers...

seawalkersee
04-03-2005, 10:45 AM
The upper was damaged, it has since been scrapped. I have the lower though. I will be interested in the full shebang, probably at the end of the year. I am thinking I will keep the cam that I have to start with (still cant find the dang card but I think its a .444) just to see what it can do. I am in the process of getting a 94+ style blower. I will need the intake for the SPIs and I hope this will not move tooo much air for the system to handle. As of now it needs a tune REALLY REALLY bad. But since I am going to change it, why mess with it?

Chris

XR7 Dave
04-03-2005, 01:43 PM
The thing I see is that some people are bent on re-inventing the wheel when they don't have a cart. Sorry if that over simplifies the issue, but it seems to fit.

No one here has proven that the current cylinder head configuration cannot fit the needs of anyone's current HP levels. With the use of "big dollar" SC heads we have exceeded 350rwhp with the Eaton and 400rwhp with a standard AR. 500rwhp has been attained with a more exotic AR setup. I'm not sure what people are trying to achieve with a new cylinder head setup.

In attempting to avoid a "big dollar" set of SC heads, you are talking about a new intake, changes to the IC system, questions of durability and applicability of parts, etc., when we have a proven system that works. You can't possibly tell me that for less than the extra $600 a set of "big dollar" SC heads are going to cost you that you can adapt the SP heads with an entirely new intake manifold. Keep in mind that the SP heads out of the box are nothing to get excited about, they still need porting and bigger valves.

Furthermore, it hasn't been proven that the "big dollar" SC heads are significantly better than some "medium dollar" SC heads. No one has actually tested the idea yet. Emphasis on yet. Robert and I plan to test some of his fully ported SC heads against the welded Stieg heads soon. We hope that you will be pleasantly surprised.

Honestly, if you are looking at the success that has been recently achieved in the 4.2 SP crowd in terms of HP and ET's, you need look no further than their power adders. It's no secret that a centrifugal blower or turbo flowing through the tuned intake on those larger motors is going to make some serious HP. To think that a set of SP heads on your SC and an M90 is going to do any better than the SC heads is most likely going to end up being a big dissappointment. Instead of worrying about a few cfm's of airflow, concentrating on a better induction system and power adder would be much more productive. Just my .02.

:)

seawalkersee
04-03-2005, 03:16 PM
Ouch...that kinda felt bad...I am trying to find a better alternate to the SC head. They blow HGs, they crack between the plug holes, and I personally believe there is a BIG problem with the exhaust ports. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not take this as me going against you dave but I just think there has got to be a good alternative to the heads we have now. I have stated before that I am not an expert on flow. I am not concerned about who can edge who out with better cfm, but if a head, out of the box is a better design then why not embrace it and then run with it?

Please do not take this the wrong way and stop posting. You are one of the top dogs on this site and everyone knows it. Help me find a fix to the problems with our current heads.

Chris

RGR
04-03-2005, 03:56 PM
I think SPI has some potential, but like DD said, it will cost more than the $600
difference on levels of SC heads. I'm going to do a set for David's personal ride
that will break new ground in some areas that no one has traveled yet ;)

It's up to David if he wants to let out a few details...

seawalkersee
04-04-2005, 01:25 PM
Why so much money? The reason I am looking at this as an option is because of people like Dave Neibert (sp). He has special intake gaskets because his ports are so big. Others have had the heads crack between plugs. Why is it soooo hard to get a good head to flow properly for a reasonable amount of money?

I am compooter stoopid and dont know how to do the quote thinggie. You said the difference would be in the levels of the head. I dont understand. Is it more phesable to do a buildup with the sc heads or the spi head? I could deal with the heads if I thought the problems with the exhaust port could be fixed easily. However I can not afford the 2gs or what ever it costs to have a d shape welded into that side. I dont have a heilarc nor do I have a flowbench. On that note, No one seems to be interested in helping out the SC community with a port plate.

Maybee this is all for not...

Chris

BT Motorsports
04-04-2005, 01:39 PM
I'm going to do a set for David's personal ride
that will break new ground in some areas that no one has traveled yet
A set of split ports or single ports? I have a split port motor in a 97 bird that will be getting a turbo in the future. I have yet to see anything impressive for the SP heads yet to justify tearing them off for porting. Keep us posted if you acheive something comparable to the welded Steig heads.

Paul

Kurt K
04-04-2005, 02:08 PM
I am compooter stoopid and dont know how to do the quote thinggie.

If you hit the 'Reply' button in the lower right-hand corner of the post you are reading, it will automatically be quoted. Also, you could type {QUOTE} {/QUOTE} (replace { with [ and } with ] ) around the text to be quoted. Or you can hit the last icon shown under the Font, Size, Color selection boxes.

Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

XR7 Dave
04-04-2005, 02:12 PM
Help me find a fix to the problems with our current heads.

Chris

I'm no top dog by any means, I've just been around a long time and I'm not going anywhere. Sometimes it seems if you stick around long you enough you float to the top even if you stink.

lol

Discussion is always good, but I've not been convinced of the value of the split port over the standard SC head for a supercharged application. As you can see Paul isn't convinced of them either though I am sure he has his own reasons for saying so.

As for the "problems" of the SC head, I don't follow you entirely. Sure some have cracked, but personally I've only seen a couple like that. I think cranksharfts break more often than the heads crack. If you simply reduce your operating temperatures the heads will never crack thereby eliminating that issue entirely.

Exhaust port flow is not the worst thing in the world. Sure they need help but when you consider that CMSII heads are not welded, you have to admit that they are capable of some really great numbers without welding. In fact, it has not been proven that welding makes enough of a difference to warrant the cost at moderate HP levels. Bill McNeil made 380rwhp with Tom Morana's unwelded heads through an air/air IC. No one else has surpassed that mark yet.

When you are approaching 400rwhp with this 3.8, you have enough money into the motor that another $600-800 for 10-20rwhp is a relative bargain. If you have a 300rwhp, then the ported stock SC heads are more than up to the job.

Can we do better? Maybe. Someone has to be willing to invest the money, time, and energy into making an alternative work. How much cost and effort will be expended for what reward? How much do we think we can gain with a SIP head over the current head? Without some expectation as to where this is leading you just won't build much momentum towards the goal. Anyone who has brought a new product to market can tell you that even the best endeavers get really discouraging with all that must go into it to get anything back out (money or performance wise, either way you look at it).

By all means if the SIP head is that much better I'm in favor of it. So far I've not seen any imperical data to back that up yet. ;)

RGR
04-04-2005, 06:27 PM
For BT:

The SPI exhaust port (stock valves) is proven to flow some 30 CFM more than
an SC head with stock valves, so I am predicting around that same amount
with similarly sized big valves in the SPI over the SC. One guy reported
211 CFM with 1.55" valves but is the same guy who got 180 with 1.45's
and was later proven to be inflated, (Superflow 600, remember?) So the 211
might be inflated too. :confused:

IMO existing SC benchmarks are inflated too, because the baselines are
higher than I have observed on my bench. Not saying anyone is cheating,
just that if the baselines are inflated, the ported figures will be inflated too.
The Steigemeyer baselines are closer to what I observed, but I need to
recheck after I get my 'bench repaired. The power connection is busted :(

BT Motorsports
04-04-2005, 06:43 PM
RGR, I haven't intentions of running any "significant" amount of lift so my concerns lie in the low lift #s capping at .500" or so. Since Steig heads have already been proven in our arena, if I see an SP head with comparable results, that is the direction I will be leaning. Obviously, to accurately compare, the SP head should really be flowed on Steig's bench.

Dave, all this talk about flow bench accuracy brings to mind another question. Do you know what size bore Bob flowed his welded heads on in the past and is it the same as present and future 3.8 Ford heads? If you don't know thats fine, I will be tearing my engine down for a rebuild soon anyway (to address that oil pressure issue mentioned a while back) and intend to flow them locally with a 3.810 bore for comparison purposes to whatever ported split port heads I end up using in the near future.

Paul

RGR
04-04-2005, 07:25 PM
RGR, I haven't intentions of running any "significant" amount of lift so my concerns lie in the low lift #s capping at .500" or so. Since Steig heads have already been proven in our arena, if I see an SP head with comparable results, that is the direction I will be leaning. Obviously, to accurately compare, the SP head should really be flowed on Steig's bench.

Dave, all this talk about flow bench accuracy brings to mind another question. Do you know what size bore Bob flowed his welded heads on in the past and is it the same as present and future 3.8 Ford heads? If you don't know thats fine, I will be tearing my engine down for a rebuild soon anyway (to address that oil pressure issue mentioned a while back) and intend to flow them locally with a 3.810 bore for comparison purposes to whatever ported split port heads I end up using in the near future.

Paul



Hey now, .500" lift is just for starters! I have worked up BH spring kits now
that David is also getting results on for me, and even with stock valves
and the best springs we can get over .600" lift. Especially BV heads, they can
benefit from more lift. It is possible to get well over .600", close to .700" with
the best springs and even over .700" with extended length valves. These
ports can be made to handle more valve lift with bigger valves, and the
springs are not even that much more expensive, in fact BH springs are
cheaper for the radical combos than dual and triple springs!

XR7 Dave
04-04-2005, 08:22 PM
Paul, Bob uses a 3.810 or 3.840 tube for his flow testing.

seawalkersee
04-06-2005, 02:18 AM
Dave, have you ever done testing with or been a part of the tests done with the sip heads?

What size valves are in both heads and what size do you recomend putting in each.

On another note, I was thinking about the epoxy that you told me about for the exhaust ports. If it works, why do we not all use it to reshape our ports.

RGR, How is it possible to reach the sonic flow on the intake side of the spi head since it has two ports?

Chris

RGR
04-06-2005, 11:26 AM
1. What size valves are in both heads and what size do you recomend putting in each.

2. On another note, I was thinking about the epoxy that you told me about for the exhaust ports. If it works, why do we not all use it to reshape our ports.

3. RGR, How is it possible to reach the sonic flow on the intake side of the spi head since it has two ports?

Chris

1.
SC: 1.78/1.45
SPI: 1.86/1.45

2.
Most exhaust ports need material removed, unlike the SC which is too big.

3.
I would not go sonic on inlet ports with an SC engine. Boost can do more
than sonic ports IMO. Even Larry Widmer uses conventional intake ports
most (or 99.9%) of the time on EFI cars it seems from reading his site.

seawalkersee
04-06-2005, 12:57 PM
He has a site? Hook a brotha up...

Chris

gldiii
04-06-2005, 01:02 PM
He has a site? Hook a brotha up...

Chris

This might be the site:

http://www.theoldone.com/

RGR
04-06-2005, 01:04 PM
He has a site? Hook a brotha up...

Chris


The Old One (Larry Widmer) (http://www.theoldone.com/)

Feast on that Chris!

seawalkersee
04-06-2005, 01:22 PM
Okay, so how do we sucker him into doing our dirty work? Anyone who can prove that adding material to a port (I have wondered about this for years and this is why I am trying to find the correct way to get more flow out of our heads) in order to gain velocity is okay with me. To see the changes he made in just the two street heads is pretty cool. But like I said before, I dont even know how to run a flow bench. :(

Chris

RGR
04-07-2005, 01:24 PM
He seems to help anyone doing porting so I will just
try and get what info I can and do some R&D myself.

seawalkersee
04-07-2005, 02:05 PM
I think I have been misunderstood. Lets try to look at this like this. WHICH HEAD IS MORE EFFICIENT? This is really what we are after is it not? How efficient will the BV make the normal SC head? If by simply putting a BV in the head and then going with some (I guess what would be equivelant to stage one porting) porting, it would make the exhaust side efficient, then sign me up.

I think for some reason this is what Dave has been trying to say all along. Not only that but, how much change is there on the exhaust side of the head by changing the valve. What size are you suggesting RGR? Do you think by doing the same to the intake side that it could possibly solve Dave Neiberts problems with intake gaskets?

Chris

David Neibert
04-07-2005, 03:23 PM
I think I have been misunderstood. Lets try to look at this like this. WHICH HEAD IS MORE EFFICIENT? This is really what we are after is it not? How efficient will the BV make the normal SC head? If by simply putting a BV in the head and then going with some (I guess what would be equivelant to stage one porting) porting, it would make the exhaust side efficient, then sign me up.

I think for some reason this is what Dave has been trying to say all along. Not only that but, how much change is there on the exhaust side of the head by changing the valve. What size are you suggesting RGR? Do you think by doing the same to the intake side that it could possibly solve Dave Neiberts problems with intake gaskets?

Chris

My problem with intake gaskets doesn't really need solving. ESM made the intake ports oversized by a considerable amount roughly 3/32" taller and wider, which required welding extensions to the intake manifold ports and sleeving some pushrod holes. They were hoping that these heads would out flow everything else that was being made at the time.

After doing all that crap they only flowed about 5 more CFM than the Stegimeier intake ports and stock port matched intake. This just proved that the intake ports are not the bottlekneck.

IMO, The bigger restriction is in the intake manifold adaptor (aka return plenum) and the size of the opening on the manifold. Even If I had a better flowing plenum and manifold opening like what Randy Baker and Wynn are making, the oversize ports still won't be needed.

David

seawalkersee
04-07-2005, 03:36 PM
Thanks for that Dave. This is getting more clear. Dont think I am trying to make excuses for questioning or trying to use you as a shield. I am really trying to find an upgrade for the car and not trying to make things too complicated.

Chris

RGR
04-07-2005, 04:26 PM
...After doing all that crap they only flowed about 5 more CFM than the Stegimeier intake ports and stock port matched intake. This just proved that the intake ports are not the bottlekneck...



But the good news is that you are getting more air to the choke point,
and it you gained 5 CFM on a 'bench you probably got more under boost.
I agree that the gasket size is not a restriction, but hopefully it will be
after the other improvements are made further into the port. I've seen
some of the port shapes and they appear to be done wrong for certain
aspects of flow. Just pix I saw, not sure who's work it was and under
boost the "problems" I have "seen" may not be a problem at all for the
overall combination. But it looked like it would be counterproductive
with the "520" cams the SC community is so enamored with. I intend
to make everyone forget the "520" cams with my new cam and BH
spring combinations :)

DD is setting up a guy now with my new stock valve BeeHive valvetrain.

David Neibert
04-07-2005, 04:37 PM
Thanks for that Dave. This is getting more clear. Dont think I am trying to make excuses for questioning or trying to use you as a shield. I am really trying to find an upgrade for the car and not trying to make things too complicated.

Chris

Chris,

No problem, I just didn't want anyone to waste their time following what was basicly an experiment on my car. After seeing that Chris Wise was able to make 30-50 more rwhp (depending on the weather) than me with nearly the same blower, and 4.2 liters of displacement using stock size intake ports and stock gaskets. We both had the same sized valves, same exhaust ports and the same cam.

He had more displacment, better intercooler, and much better intake manifold adaptor and larger opening in the intake manifold. IMO aside from the intake manifold restrictions I mentioned earlier, we need a more efficent blower.

The AR equipped cars have already shown us that.

David

thekidz
04-07-2005, 05:25 PM
I just bought some BH springs from DD. I'm not sure if is me you are talking about. The valves are not stock. They are stock length though. Hopefully this combo works. Very interesting thread

Have fun
Craig

XR7 Dave
04-07-2005, 08:15 PM
No, Sean Matteson is getting RGR's stock valve beehive spring application. Hopefully it will be installed very soon!

Randy N Connie
04-07-2005, 09:58 PM
The only port I see a problem with is the middle intake.
I didnt have a problem getting cfm mumbers I was happy
with.

But after wet flow testing it took some time to get the
middle intake port air even entering the bowl area, for an even
flow around the intake valve.

All of the ports intake or exhaust were easy to work with.
Except The middle intake take the most work.All of the
SC heads ports need the floor & roof raised.

My ports for my new motor all have more CC volume than
stock.The ports turned out a little taller and a little narrower
in spots.My biggest change would be the combustion chamber.
The stock combustion chambers shape is an invitation to
a detonation party.I beleive that the combustion chamber
needs a different shape if you choose to increase cranking
pressures.

I did not see it a problem to surpass Stegs numbers.

Some day I will get to test in the real world.If I ever have
enough time to build up my block.So far they look good to
go as far as bench testing.

RGR
How much is the Wt. for the beehive valves?
What type material is available for the spring collars?
Are different depth collars available for the beehive spring?
Will the beehive spring pack installed assembly have enough height for .700 cam with minimal spring pocket machine work?

I think one big problem people have with exhaust flow is,Exhaust headers.
The exhaust header need to be longer,higher, before the header down turn .
The header needs to be slightly raised and longer,before it turns into
a larger down turn radius.

And for the intake ports.They are fed with a manifold that tries to slam
the air to the top of the port.Then the air looks like a ping-pong ball
bouncing up and down in a Z pattern from a side veiw.The raidus in the
intake manifolds top needs to be shorter & straightened.Both intake
manifold,plenum & the stock or Kooks exhaust headers will kill any
topend air at the drag strip, that the greatest port job could produce.

Flow testing for CFMs in Big, medium,or small ports,Ain't worth *****
Without wet flow tests.Flow benchs are for balancing air CFMS to its
sister port.Not to compair numbers to some one elses bench.I am
suprise that people never talk about clean laminar air,only CFM numbers.

Thats like the guys that have dyno queens with good numbers.
And they think with there big numbers, example 400 rwhp, they will
win every drag race they enter against a 350rwhp. Not without the
support of good chassis set up and lightened car.Heads are the
same they will only be as good as the limit in front of and after the
port job.Flow testing for only CFMs is less than half of the flow test
job that should be conducted,if your serious about the performace
of your heads plus intake system,the extra flow tests are very worth while.


Thanks Randy

David Neibert
04-08-2005, 12:16 AM
But it looked like it would be counterproductive with the "520" cams the SC community is so enamored with. I intend to make everyone forget the "520" cams with my new cam and BH spring combinations

RGR,

Chris Wise and I both had a 226/239 .625/.625 lift cam that worked real good on both motors. Well except for yanking rocker studs out of the head about every two months it was great. I fixed the stud problem but broke a lifter retainer last year doing a burnout and hitting the rev limiter and screwed up a bunch of other stuff from the resulting metal shavings.

I replaced that cam (damaged) with a 240/240 .539/.539 that's got almost no vacuum (7 inches at idle), not quite as strong from a dig, but feels about the same on the top end. Chassis dyno says I lost about 10-15 rwhp, but the car needs a tune so it might not be that bad.

BTW, I've got the same valve springs and retainers that Steg uses on his heads. No problem lifting to .650.

David

seawalkersee
04-08-2005, 01:43 AM
Randy, so witht the pics of the heads that I posted, do you think the design of the dual intake ports is an improvement over the stock heads? I think what the design that we should look for is one that has the best flow as far as efficency goes. Clean makes good power and good drivability. My car runs rich because of the lack of a tune. I think by cleaning it up the thing would run much better. If by adding bigger valves to the heads it would make the ports more efficient and by changing the intake path making that more efficient (this is all of course hypothetical) it could solve the majority of the flow problems. Does this make sence to the rest of you?

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
04-08-2005, 07:28 AM
Chris,

I think its pretty much a known that the stock dual port 3.8 heads are more efficient then the single ports. WHat Ive been told by many 3.8 head builders is that you cant get as large an exhaust valve in the dual port heads as you can the single ports. This is why you will see much better flow number on a big valve Sc head as oppossed to a dual port head. As far as on the intake side I'm unsure if flow numbers have surpassed lets say that of a STeig head with a fully worked dual port...

Randy N Connie
04-08-2005, 08:57 AM
Randy, so witht the pics of the heads that I posted, do you think the design of the dual intake ports is an improvement over the stock heads?

Chris
I would not know if one head is better than the other.I would need hands on
and inspect the split ports for a couple days,before I could comment.


Thanks Randy

RGR
04-08-2005, 09:19 AM
I'm referring to the majority here, that uses the .520 cam/spring combo.
BH springs will be cheaper than many cylindrical spring setups that exceed
.520" and probably cheaper than the ones listed above.

More to come, DD and I are working on new pkg's for these.

I bet Steig used longer valves for some of these higher lift setup, correct?

Randy N Connie
04-08-2005, 10:14 AM
I bet Steig used longer valves for some of these higher lift setup, correct?
Well its longer valves or spring pockets would need to be machined.
or both.To get the proper spring pack height.

I beleive most run around a .520 lift cam,because regrinds have
been the only available route to take.Now blanks are available
as of two or three month ago.

STEG motorcycle History
One thing that is fact.Steg heads never beat my Harley Davison heads
at a national all harley drag race's.But his HD heads were allways in
the hunt for the top five.He did not do any fuel heads that I know
of,just gas.He do's have some national championships under his belt
for H.D racing in the gas classes..Modified ,Pro-stock,Top Gas.

Randy

seawalkersee
04-08-2005, 04:57 PM
Chris,

WHat Ive been told by many 3.8 head builders is that you cant get as large an exhaust valve in the dual port heads as you can the single ports. This is why you will see much better flow number on a big valve Sc head as oppossed to a dual port head. As far as on the intake side I'm unsure if flow numbers have surpassed lets say that of a STeig head with a fully worked dual port...

So its another trade off. Why can there be no easy solution to the questions. 6 of one half dozen of the other.

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
04-08-2005, 10:29 PM
Here is how I look at it.


Switch to a dual port head requires a custom intake. So you are looking at cost of heads and custom intake and probably a cam and pushrods to make it all work right. I'd also be concered at a potential loss of low rpm power but Im unsure. Anyway how much would the switch over be.

Used head cost
Custom Manifold cost
Pushrods and cam cost

Head porting and whatnot will just add to the cost

And hopefully all stock componants line up and work without modifications.

Or you can just do a set of super expensive steig heads and probably have less headaches and save some dough and make more power.

I looked into this head option years ago as they flow nice stock..Just to much work

a NICE SINGLE PORT CASTING HEAD WHICH IS WHAT THIS TREAD IS ABOUT WOULD BE GREAT!!!

David Neibert
04-08-2005, 10:33 PM
I'm referring to the majority here, that uses the .520 cam/spring combo.
BH springs will be cheaper than many cylindrical spring setups that exceed
.520" and probably cheaper than the ones listed above.

More to come, DD and I are working on new pkg's for these.

I bet Steig used longer valves for some of these higher lift setup, correct?

Yes, I'm sure they would have to be longer stem valves, because mine are and the Steg springs worked with them using the standard cups and retainers.

David

XR7 Dave
04-09-2005, 12:55 AM
Steig heads use stock length valves. No adjustments are needed to bolt onto a completely stock engine. I believe the seats are cut and it is a custom valve spring/retainer package which sets very high.

The whole ".520" thing is a concept intended to keep the stock retainers from hitting the valve seals. I had always understood that about .530" was max clearance there however I measured over .540" on a stock set of head I have here so I'm not so sure anymore. The use of a lower profile seal will make the stock guides safe much higher than that. I know the Steig head are all good to more than .610".

seawalkersee
04-09-2005, 12:56 AM
Here is how I look at it.


Switch to a dual port head requires a custom intake. So you are looking at cost of heads and custom intake and probably a cam and pushrods to make it all work right. I'd also be concered at a potential loss of low rpm power but Im unsure. Anyway how much would the switch over be.

Used head cost

I already have the heads.
Custom Manifold cost

I already have to have the triangle cut out of mine.Pushrods and cam cost

Why will my aftermarket cam and the pushrods not work?
Head porting and whatnot will just add to the cost

I have to port one set of heads, I am trying to figure out which one.

And hopefully all stock componants line up and work without modifications.

Yep.
Or you can just do a set of super expensive steig heads and probably have less headaches and save some dough and make more power.

I looked into this head option years ago as they flow nice stock..Just to much work

Is this additional work from what you listed above?
a NICE SINGLE PORT CASTING HEAD WHICH IS WHAT THIS TREAD IS ABOUT WOULD BE GREAT!!!

I has been several weeks and I dont think the company either got my email or if they did they are not interested.

Chris

seawalkersee
04-09-2005, 12:59 AM
I am not computer savvy. I tried to quote and answer. If you all can see my answer is in the orange on the quote of the last post.

Chris

Randy N Connie
04-09-2005, 09:58 AM
I have 3 pairs of SC heads and have only work on the ports of
two of them.So I don't have a lot of experience with the SC head.
But if I was casting a new head up.This is some changes I would
would think may help the SC bird head casting.

1.Melt down some slit port heads to cast a new shaped single port SC head.
2.Add aluminum depth to the area around the valve guide.
3.Raise ex valve guide.100
4.add aluminum to the floor.
5.shrink some water jacket areas.
6.change combustion chamber shape.
7.Make the head deck thicker.
8. raise intake port entrance
9.raise exhaust port exit.
10. change valve angles.
11. then smoke Damon at the track. :)

To pay to have the new head developed with,design,molds,
casting,machining, porting,parts first pair of heads
can be finished for testing.For a mir $40,000.00 .The CNC
machine programming would alone be $10,000.00 to $15,000.00.


My pennies worth thanks Randy

seawalkersee
04-09-2005, 10:34 AM
Well I figure at that low cost it should only take a hundred of us or so...so who is first?

Chris

RGR
04-09-2005, 10:45 AM
1.Melt down some slit port heads to cast a new shaped single port SC head.
2.Add aluminum depth to the area around the valve guide.
3.Raise ex valve guide.100
4.add aluminum to the floor.
5.shrink some water jacket areas.
6.change combustion chamber shape.
7.Make the head deck thicker.
8. raise intake port entrance
9.raise exhaust port exit.
10. change valve angles.
11. then smoke Damon at the track. :)



1. DON'T YOU DARE!!! Use older (89-95) non-SC Single Port heads, they are a dime-a-dozen :D Save the Split Port!!!
2. Sounds good
5. " "
6. Ditto
7. Yup-Yup!
8. KILLER!!!
9. ...and raise the Floor too!
10. MORE VALVE CANTING :D
11. LOL!

seawalkersee
04-09-2005, 10:56 PM
I went and pulled some of the parts off of my parts car today (some of them will be used in the design of billit products on this forum). I came to the harsh realization that I already have more then enough from the second car to upgrade the sc heads with less pain then swithching over to the spi heads. I can send out the lower and have the triangle cut out by Rich (I think he is the one doing it) and at the same time have the heads workd on.

RGR I am still awaiting my answer. Do not think I will forget. I need to know if we can overcome the low floor on the exhaust side with minimal porting and a larger valve. So when you and Dave are done I NEED the results.

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
04-09-2005, 11:30 PM
Randy you sonomabisatch..Anywayyssssss...........Ill just get kicked off the track:O)

So I lose by default

XR7 Dave
04-10-2005, 09:32 AM
Damon, at this rate you will never get out of thet 15's. Ever.

Randy N Connie
04-10-2005, 10:28 AM
Chris to remove triangle,
Take the manifold to a machine shop.They can place
your manifold on a mill table.Then you cut the triangle
out from the bottom of manifold.

Then get a peice of aluminum 6061 .250 thick.Shape
the peice of aluminum to fit the milled cutout triangle
hole.Then weld ,use ER4043 aluminum filler rod .

I can do this for you.I think Rich farms this type work out.
It takes a mill,tig welder,peice of aluminum.I do not replace
the sheild under the manifold.

Randy

Randy N Connie
04-10-2005, 10:42 AM
RGR I am still awaiting my answer. Do not think I will forget. I need to know if we can overcome the low floor on the exhaust side with minimal porting and a larger valve. So when you and Dave are done I NEED the results.
Chris

Chris the SC casting have a huge difference's in castings.If you
could post some pictures of your exhaust ports,If you can,t post
pictures.Do this

Is the valve seat even or above the floor of the port.You can see if it
is from looking into the port from the exhaust header flange.

If the seat is higher than the port floor this head would benifit from
port floor weld build-up.

RANDY



Randy

seawalkersee
04-10-2005, 12:20 PM
So what if its not higher? Then what? I have not pulled the engine yet but Im a workin on it. It seems that depending on which head you have the seats might be above or even on one head and not on the next. I think a good job would start on placing all of them in the same location and setting the installed height what we would like it to be. The only poblem with this is I believe it would requre bigger seats in the event they were too low in the chamber. Gentlemen, your thoughts please...

Chris

RGR
04-13-2005, 07:28 PM
...RGR I am still awaiting my answer. Do not think I will forget. I need to know if we can overcome the low floor on the exhaust side with minimal porting and a larger valve. So when you and Dave are done I NEED the results....
Chris

What exactly (in brief form) was the question again? I was a bit confused as to
what you wanted to know. If you email me a # I can call you and talk porting
until your head swims :D

IMO the stock SC ports get a much better short turn with a bigger valve
because you are getting up higher on the port floor and therefore the
short turn has a longer radius as a natural result. A Huge Exhaust valve
would be even better on an SC head, but require bigger seats. I was getting
good gains just by using a 1.500" valve and reworking the short turn while
doing the rest of the port very similar to what I did with the 1.45" stocker.

seawalkersee
04-14-2005, 02:53 AM
IMO the stock SC ports get a much better short turn with a bigger valve
because you are getting up higher on the port floor and therefore the
short turn has a longer radius as a natural result. A Huge Exhaust valve
would be even better on an SC head, but require bigger seats. I was getting
good gains just by using a 1.500" valve and reworking the short turn while
doing the rest of the port very similar to what I did with the 1.45" stocker.[/QUOTE]

I will have to go back and find the question. This is my absolute favorite thread because it is full of sooo much info from some of the (I think) expert opinions and facts from the SC community. In your above post I am in question of your "Getting up higher". What do you mean by that? As far as the exhaust, how big are we talking before we exceed the 75% and will it fit in the stock head?

Chris

CMac89
04-14-2005, 03:29 AM
A problem I see with an SC head is that the port is long and has a bad cross sectional area If the port was more straight and had good transition through out the valve bowl area there would be an increase of flow. Not only are the heads a bad design you also have an intake manifold and return plenum to make things worse. Its like ford did all of these horrible designs because they didn't want to show the mustang up with grandmas ole T-Bird.

By the way RGR, where are you located in Indy....?

seawalkersee
04-25-2005, 01:16 AM
I was reading my petersons 4wheel and off road. They have a ls6 6.0l in an old blazer. The part that stunned me was the pics of the head. These things are top notch. You can tell by looking at the valve placement and the exhaust port that they have the right touch. I am getting sooo fed up with trying to spend money to get up to the bare minimum of what some of their factory stuff is already made of. If I didnt hate chevys soo much I would sell all this junk and jump into a ram air.

Chris

RGR
02-27-2006, 02:24 AM
By the way RGR, where are you located in Indy....?

Dang, Just west on I-70, in Terre Haute!
Sorry for the late reply, hope you get this.

CMac89
02-27-2006, 02:46 AM
Dang, Just west on I-70, in Terre Haute!
Sorry for the late reply, hope you get this.
I live in Plainfield so I'm not too far from you.

Has this thread gotten anywhere or steering a good direction for head options?

I was going to digitize the ports on my heads at work, but my boss was going to charge me the same amount as customers even to do my own heads.:(

RGR
02-27-2006, 02:56 AM
I live in Plainfield so I'm not too far from you.

Has this thread gotten anywhere or steering a good direction for head options?

I was going to digitize the ports on my heads at work, but my boss was going to charge me the same amount as customers even to do my own heads.:(
What a jaggoff!

I've been leaning towards SPI heads, or the simple bolton of using a 96-98 head.
I can get good flow with those, BV's are decent priced, and lightweight.
I have some wild mods cooked up for my upcoming set, should exceed the
old standbys you SC folks are using. We'll see I guess.
We should do some stuff together :)

CMac89
02-27-2006, 01:14 PM
I've been leaning towards SPI heads, or the simple bolton of using a 96-98 head.
I can get good flow with those, BV's are decent priced, and lightweight.
I have some wild mods cooked up for my upcoming set, should exceed the
old standbys you SC folks are using. We'll see I guess.
We should do some stuff together :)
You know that an intake manifold would needed to be made also, right?

If you need anything then just holla.:)

RGR
02-27-2006, 04:33 PM
You know that an intake manifold would needed to be made also, right?

Painfully aware. I was lending tech expertise to "SpeedKillz" who
was spearheading the Mustang/SC-Eaton conversion kits, but
I don't know where that is now. I need to email him and see
if I could pick up where he left off... I had a pretty good idea
of how to make my own from existing SPI lower intakes, CNC
would be a big help possibly!

Randy N Connie
08-02-2006, 12:01 PM
Has any thing happined with the SP And SP manifold for the SC Bird?

I have a couple changes to the stock SC Bird manifold casting
That I am going to try out. I am using a raised manifold and
making some changes inside to help with linear flow into the
intake ports. And then going with a scratch built manifold.
To be use on the SC bird heads. fingers are cross that the mods
will work out. Hope to have one at the 2006 shootout to test.

Randy

sail7seas
08-02-2006, 01:46 PM
I have wondered if some kind of thermal barrier/reflector between the intake manifold and blower would help say 10 degrees. Perhaps retarding the heat soak process.
Also, wondered if taking a fibreglass female mold (top & bottom) of the intake manifold to make a carbon fibre intake manifold with improved air flow, and reduced thermal transfer.
How would one redirect the air inside the manifold equally to ports?

RGR
08-03-2006, 10:11 AM
AFAIK SpeedKillz is not doing this anymore.
There si one person with one (prototype or home-built) using an Eaton
over @ 3.8 but I've not seen anything about it.

metalman
08-05-2006, 02:51 PM
I have wondered if some kind of thermal barrier/reflector between the intake manifold and blower would help say 10 degrees. Perhaps retarding the heat soak process.
Also, wondered if taking a fibreglass female mold (top & bottom) of the intake manifold to make a carbon fibre intake manifold with improved air flow, and reduced thermal transfer.
How would one redirect the air inside the manifold equally to ports?


Phenolic spacers are thermal barriers. You can get them for mustangs all day long. My brother and father have 1 1/2" phenolic spacers between there upper and lower manifolds on there '95 Cobra and '88 5.0 LX respectivley. They really reduce heat transfer between the manifolds.

I'm kind of surprised with heat and air temp being an issue in our cars, that we haven't seen phenolic spacers available for the SC tops or plenums.

XxSlowpokexX
08-10-2006, 02:07 PM
Phenolic spacers do wonders on carb cars due to reducing vapor loc,,,I am not sold at all that they do much good on FI engines except that they increase runner lenght which will ultimately affect power output. In our application perhap sif we completely isolate dteh blower from any metal to metal contact as the discharge temps should be less then engine temp meaning heat will go in not out. Isolating the blower may reduce that. Phenolic washers may help.

Thomas
09-08-2006, 03:21 AM
ever seen aftermarket grand national heads? I think we could do something similar. A redesigned intake port with more volume. As in straight large intake ports. And a redesigned exhaust port. Morana can add 4 more head bolt bosses to each side of the 3.8 block and heads, so maybe new heads could incorporate this? Along with a larger diameter valve guide, thicker deck height. The larger intake ports would mean a different intake manifold, but I would think anyone doing this would have the means capable of making their own, or modifying their current one. Modifying the SC lower intake would be easy.
-Thomas

Tickler
10-06-2006, 06:17 AM
Using stainless washers between the blower and manifold I noticed a considerable reduction in temperature. Anyone know where I can get some Phenolic spacers?

RGR
02-19-2011, 11:57 PM
anything new NE1?
my son is pursuing the SPI/SC Setup in "ultimate SC Block build"
and we are trying to incorporate ALL the latest build techniques
and parts into one engine.