PDA

View Full Version : A better cylinder head.....



Pages : [1] 2

XR7 Dave
10-09-2006, 11:54 PM
We all know that the cylinder head/intake manifold arrangement on the SC is a major achilles heel for us. So what is the interest in a NEW cylinder head package and matching intake manifold?

Up to 400rwhp and 6000rpm the OE heads do "ok" perhaps but what if you could make more power with less boost and not have to worry about cracking heads or lifting due to flexing between the bolts? What if you had the ability to run 8500rpm without worrying about valvetrain stability and had the ability to run high boost all the way up to that level and beyond? 700-800hp is not out of the realm of possibilites if we can flow enough air.

Is the SC community ready for such a product? Would you be interested in a cylinder head that would flow 300cfm out of the box and have the potential of flowing 380+cfm with professional porting? It could happen.

There is a cylinder head casting company looking seriously at the 3.8L Ford market right now that has the ability to create a "clean slate" cylinder head for our motors. If we can show the kind of interest that would make this a legitimate offering for this company then let me know. It can happen if there is enough interest.

Vote on the poll and post any comments below.

:)

trife86
10-10-2006, 12:14 AM
Hell yea we need some head's

Toms-SC
10-10-2006, 05:03 PM
I put yes but the time frame for this must not be 'years'. I would like to see something concrete in the coming months.

Toms-SC
10-10-2006, 05:08 PM
An added concern I would have is the water passages lining up. From my understanding only a select year of V6 Mustang heads will work on our application.

BT Motorsports
10-10-2006, 05:24 PM
Though I applaud the effort, I have to seriously wonder about Damon's price references. Kenny D. and TA Performance were able to cast a whole new head AND block and sell them at what I believe racers consider to be a reasonable cost. David have you or those involved investigated why their retail cost is so much lower than the current proposed cost? I realize the quoted price is just an estimate, however, a 30% spread is a bit much.

It would be easier to adapt a 3.8L Buick head than the 4.5L SVO head.
Have you investigated doing just that and then concentrating R&D efforts into an improved manifold design to compliment? It appears to me from the R&D you posted earlier regarding our current head and intake manifold options that perhaps our efforts should be directed a bit different. You presented that we are not currently taking advantage of the heads that we do have available so I have to wonder where we would be if a manifold was developed first that could later be implemented to use with an aftermarkt head?

If such a head is developed, in addition to a better deck, will there be provisions for additional bolts like the TA heads? It has been said that Morana has developed a way to add additional holes to stock heads and blocks, has this been evaluated?

Paul

XR7 Dave
10-10-2006, 06:05 PM
Though I applaud the effort, I have to seriously wonder about Damon's price references. Kenny D. and TA Performance were able to cast a whole new head AND block and sell them at what I believe racers consider to be a reasonable cost. David have you or those involved investigated why their retail cost is so much lower than the current proposed cost? I realize the quoted price is just an estimate, however, a 30% spread is a bit much.

The poll is a question intended to judge interest. It is not an offering for sale. Don't get too carried away with questions of price at this point. The offer, when made will represent the actual cost with factors built in very much the same as the TA heads. Any manufacturer looks at anticipated volume, R&D costs, and production costs and then sets up their prices accordingly. What the projections were for those heads vs. the projections for ours - I cannot say because I do not know.


Have you investigated doing just that (using the Buick 3.8 head)and then concentrating R&D efforts into an improved manifold design to compliment? It appears to me from the R&D you posted earlier regarding our current head and intake manifold options that perhaps our efforts should be directed a bit different. You presented that we are not currently taking advantage of the heads that we do have available so I have to wonder where we would be if a manifold was developed first that could later be implemented to use with an aftermarkt head?
As stated above, a new intake is part of the plan. It would be logical to first create a better manifold for our existing heads, but then when we found the limits of that combination we would look for something more..... Some of us feel that the SC community is tired of incremental improvements. I think what we want is the best that we can do and perhaps now is the right time to make that step. So instead of developing a manifold that works better with our existing heads, why not concentrate on a product that simply antiquates our current hardware?

Ultimately the actual route to go in regards to the actual cylinder head design, whether it borrows from the SVO or the Buick head is not an issue that I will be involved in. The choice will be left to those who are actually designing the head and most likely the final choice will be dependant on the physical layout of the valvetrain, coolant passages, and port shapes. This is not something that I claim to have enough knowledge to be able to make any decision on. That will be left up to the manufacturer/designer.




If such a head is developed, in addition to a better deck, will there be provisions for additional bolts like the TA heads? It has been said that Morana has developed a way to add additional holes to stock heads and blocks, has this been evaluated?

Paul

Tom Morana tapped the outer edge of the cylinder bore for a small bolt which would function similar to a head clamp. I am not aware of this being part of the plan for the new head. I'm not sure that it would be necessary or even beneficial with a properly designed deck. As often as not our headgaskets blow in other areas than just around the spark plug where the extra bolt would be.

XR7 Dave
10-10-2006, 06:33 PM
An added concern I would have is the water passages lining up. From my understanding only a select year of V6 Mustang heads will work on our application.

Water passages are a function of the cylinder heads, not the block. All blocks are the same so a new cylinder head would not be affected by the different water passage designs. The new heads would not necessarily be the same as any previous design.

Where the intake bolts on and the crossover passage is is universal for all 3.8's. But again, the new heads may or may not follow that lead.

As for a timeline, the first step is to show sufficient interest for us to be able to present the designer with a viable business opportunity for which to go ahead with the R&D. As CMac89 mentioned, it is possible to go from idea to blueprints in a matter of a few months. How long the rest of the process takes I do not know.

007_SuperCoupe
10-10-2006, 06:44 PM
I'm interested in how the new manifold is to be designed.

I'm working on my own manifold right now, and the biggest thing that I can see as an issue for more than mine is hood clearance. I've got plenty of clearance, but what I'm looking at, a 1.5" cowl isn't tall enough. I'm sure that hood clearance has been thought about, but I also know that there's not a lot of room under there.

As for new heads, that would be great, so long as they can work with the stock set-up. I'd hate to have to drop additional money for custom exhaust headers because it's different than stock. That adds a lot more to the cost. If they're bolt on heads, great!


Where the intake bolts on and the crossover passage is is universal for all 3.8's. But again, the new heads may or may not follow that lead.

I've got a set of 3.8 heads right now that 2 of the mounting bolt holes for the manifold are different than the SC. Not sure what 3.8 heads they are, but 2 definitely don't line up, so they're not all universal.

Roadhawg
10-10-2006, 06:49 PM
I saw your post on the V6power boards. You have sparked my interest. I know from what you said keeping the intake ports in the stock location is not going to happen. The custom intake manifold issue concerns me, I have watched the drama with the splitport Mustang guys and the quest for a M112 splitport intake. Also I guess with canted valves a new piston design will most likely be required.

XxSlowpokexX
10-10-2006, 07:11 PM
A direct bolt on head woyld be most bennificial to all as well as to teh developer. As much as a NASCAR type head would be nice..From a production standpoint it will sell in only small numbers....I'd want one but I feel the profit is not there for the developer. Something that can use factory intakes I think is key. Raising the exhhaust port slightly not as much of a problem...

To date the best power making heads I have ever had were a set of old TFS high ports in Iron.

This is what should be discussed before spending money on R&D

A set of really good heads that use factory parts...Or a set of race oriented heads that NEED non factory parts. I'm sure a guy with a v6 stang or an SC would love a direct bolt on head that could give them an honest 40rwhp and better head gasket sealing characteristics...

Price and compatability are key to any successful product....

XR7 Dave
10-10-2006, 07:33 PM
I'm interested in how the new manifold is to be designed.

I'm working on my own manifold right now, and the biggest thing that I can see as an issue for more than mine is hood clearance. I've got plenty of clearance, but what I'm looking at, a 1.5" cowl isn't tall enough. I'm sure that hood clearance has been thought about, but I also know that there's not a lot of room under there.

As for new heads, that would be great, so long as they can work with the stock set-up. I'd hate to have to drop additional money for custom exhaust headers because it's different than stock. That adds a lot more to the cost. If they're bolt on heads, great!



I've got a set of 3.8 heads right now that 2 of the mounting bolt holes for the manifold are different than the SC. Not sure what 3.8 heads they are, but 2 definitely don't line up, so they're not all universal.

We aren't worried about the mounting bolts. We are talking only about water passages to the block. The heads will require a new intake manifold. I don't believe there is enough gain to be had with the existing intake manifold to make this a worthwhile venture keeping that as it is. By retaining the dogleg center port you limit the potential of the head and furthermore with the stock manifold the benefit of a better flowing port would not be seen. The stock intake will not flow more than 210cfm.

I realize that the Mustang community has been through hell trying to get an intake for their motors, but this is different. We have a company with the very real capability of making a manifold along with the heads, not a speed shop or an individual trying to make something that is beyond their capabilties.

Something that can also be addressed is the thermostat housing itself. The housing is a problem for many larger blower applications. By removing it or moving it or at least changing it's configuration we can then make use of larger blowers like the M112 - M122 as well as larger AR's without people having to give up their air to air IC's. There is no reason why we can't fit the blowers under a stock hood for those who want it all with the use of a new manifold.

For those who don't want a stock hood then a short runner manifold with air/water IC built in can be fitted, or a long runner top can be used for turbo, NA, or centrifugal applications.

Yes, the intake manifold is a big part of this, but as I said before, do we really want a new intake for our substandard head design? Why not get both items at once. I think that a good head/intake package will give life to these motors that far exceeds anything any of us envisioned. These old OE heads have a limited lifespan and we may be nearing the end of it. I should know, I port these heads for part of my living. Many castings have to be scrapped or undergo expensive repairs to be used. Even then, the castings are very porus and some are highly fatigued. How long will they last? Anybody's guess.

Kurt K
10-10-2006, 08:32 PM
I cannot commit to any type of time frame, but I don't see why I wouldn't buy a set....heck I've bought just about everything else.

SCrazy
10-10-2006, 09:05 PM
Now were talking....I'd be all over that.

Randy N Connie
10-10-2006, 10:07 PM
This sounds great. And will save me a few grand not casting
any manifolds up. I had been in talks the last few mounth
about casting some new manifolds for the 3.8 SC.. And
announce this few weeks ago.

I was just getting ready to ship a copy of my new designed
manifold for inspection and final casting prices. To Charles of MP.
Glad you posted this now I can back off on this part to.
And save me time and money.

The guess-stament start up price for a manifold casting was around $15,000.00.
I asked about heads, Its double price for the heads.
This is with all parts designed and first master built.

Randy

Nettlesd
10-10-2006, 10:10 PM
I would also post this information on the Mustang V6 boards. They may not be able to use the intake manifold but I bet they would be all over the heads if they are made.

ben m
10-10-2006, 10:14 PM
you could pattern it after the 4.5 nascar motor heads, they have huge, strait ports and a flange i don't think anybody could lift! or cut off two cylinders of the twisted wedge sbf heads and weld em up!

XR7 Dave
10-10-2006, 10:30 PM
The information has been posted on the V6 Mustang boards. The head design would most likely include a modular intake base that would accept a variety of tops based on application from a standard SC configuration to a long runner N/A design as well as an air/water integrated design for inverted blower setups with large blowers like the M122 and AR designs. This intake would be at additional cost (most likely in the $500 range).

Determining if there is sufficient interest to warrant the R&D that would go into such a head is the purpose of these posts. This is something that could easily take the SC motor to a whole new level if we can come together as a community and support the development of a new product such as this.

This is not a 'vendor for profit' arrangement. It would be manufacturer direct for all of us. While the costs are higher than for what is currently available, the costs listed would be direct parts and labor to the manufacturer.

bowez
10-10-2006, 10:31 PM
Personally, If I was to buy a set of ~$2000 heads I would not take kindly to still needing to get them ported, espically when a good porting job seems to run near $1000.

XR7 Dave
10-10-2006, 10:32 PM
you could pattern it after the 4.5 nascar motor heads, they have huge, strait ports and a flange i don't think anybody could lift! or cut off two cylinders of the twisted wedge sbf heads and weld em up!

Due to the process of designing a cylinder head and the # of changes required this is not a practical solution. Those heads mentioned employ a 4.0" bore and therefore completely different bolt spacing, etc. It would be easier to adapt a 3.8L Buick head than the 4.5L SVO head. ;)

the-big-e
10-10-2006, 10:51 PM
If we go with that head design, how will it effect the cranks on our engines.....

Will our stock cranks be capable of handling that kind of HP #s that these heads will give us?????

Or will we end up like the Mustang at the shoot out......:rolleyes:

Jason Wild
10-10-2006, 11:01 PM
I might be in for a set. kind of changes my plans I had all ready but thats cool since I fell this will work out butter and let me hit my goal.

David Neibert
10-10-2006, 11:04 PM
I would buy a set. A thicker deck and provisions for high lift cams and shaft mounted rockers would be a huge improvement over what we have now.

David

ScrapSC
10-10-2006, 11:21 PM
Well I am in the situation that I everthing else as well. I would be interested in a new head setup as well. Not sure of a time frame but it would be something I would get knowing I had the possibillity of making more horses without raising the heads and raising the boost.

91supacoop
10-10-2006, 11:53 PM
sometime in the future, i also would be interested in a set. Just let me get my current configuration in the car:D....vote submitted

Ira R.
10-11-2006, 12:06 AM
Well, the heads are on the "next project" list anyway...... ;)

Ira

Super XR7
10-11-2006, 12:33 AM
New heads would take our cars to whole new level of performance which is long overdue. You can count me in on a set. You might even have those V8 turbo guys changing back to V6's!

Mike

XxSlowpokexX
10-11-2006, 12:49 AM
The only thing I see is that if we are going to create an aftermarket head we shouldnt compramise....Or should we?

For instance and for comparative purposes a edlbrock preformer head is much improved over stock however for more of a racing application you would want a Victor head casting.

With the race oriented castings we are worries about piston to valve clearence as valve are larger as well as set at a different angle or location. Also low end flow numbers may suffer. Also location of the exhaust port. Raising the port would do wonders for us but at the cost of custom headers.

So would we be aiming at a good street head..or more of a racing application head?

Also a lil disturbing to me again is the cost. If there is truly a big demand for these heads the cost should be considerably cheaper..But you may say...Oh but a 3.8..Ist new it costs alot to cast..manufacture......Not do much when you are the one casting as well as selling.. A good example is

http://www.taperformance.com/PAGES%20PDF/2006F_1.pdf

The Buick 3.8 TA aluminum heads.....Take a look its a good example. $1,7XX a set fully assembled...Is a premium price because....Who buys aluminum 3.8 heads???...Not many..I'd hazzard a guess that more peopel would buy the 3.8 ford heads in a heartbeat..So here we are dealing with a head that is of the highest quality and sold in VERY LOW NUMBERS comming in at at least $700 less then this proposed price.

Professional products came out with aluminum v8 heads for under 1,000 a pair....And look at how much compition head wise there is for the v8 ford...

Seems that this manufacturer may be taking advantage oif the fact there is no other .

I'm all for the heads and am willing to pay even the 2,500 but even in limited quantities it's not a bargain....Like I said they would be doing it in house so therefore it isnt costing them as much as it would Randy I or you to produce..Not NEARLY as much.

Just my thoughts..With an example

XR7 Dave
10-11-2006, 02:42 AM
The general idea is to start out with a casting and general design that incorporates efficient flow principles with relatively small port volumes but with the ability to be ported for extreme applications. This would give us the best applicability across the board. As it is now our heads have very limited ability to be ported beyond what they are stock. The material is too thin in all the wrong areas. This design would be created for maximum flow and then possibly some material added back in certain areas to give higher velocities for street applications. A thick deck capable of withstanding well over 1000hp is definitely part of the plan as well.

Thomas
10-11-2006, 01:08 PM
extra head bolts would be nice, but I dont think they'd be necessary. Matt is putting ~800hp to the flexplate and 30psi with 98 heads and ARP head studs. He tightens the crap out of those studs, but they hold it. Imagine what a thicker deck could hold?

a completely new manifold is exactly what we need anyway. The best modified heads out there already outflow the current intake, why would you want to spend more money on heads just to keep the bottleneck on top of them? If they make a base piece that could incorporate different attachements for superchargers, long runner NA intakes, and short runner high pm manifolds, then you could also just buy their lower piece and make your own custom addition to it. Thats the way I would go with it anyway.

If the exhaust ports were raised, I dont really see it being an issue. I've lifted my engine to change motor mounts and had no problems, and the exhaust was attached the whole time. I dont see raised exhaust ports being a fitment problem as long as they still have the same bolt pattern for current headers and manifolds.

A direct bolt-on head would be a waste of time and money. You can put 1200 dollars in to a bolt-on head and have a good set of heads. But why restrict yourself? These engines have the potential to be so much more, you cant limit yourself to what the original engineers decided on. Think outside the box, see what these can do. If we can make something completely new, make it right.

Out of the box these heads will be better than anything out there on the market as of current. There are heads that flow 300cfm, but the velocity isnt there, and the turbulence is there too much. You would not need to get these ported in order for them to be a good head. They'll already rule over anything we have available. Porting them would only raise the potential that much more.

About the crank handling it? Again, I'll go back to Matt's example. He is putting about 800bhp into his 4.2 cast steel crank with 30psi. If it can handle that, then I think you'll be fine.

I had originally planned on putting on a t-series turbo and feeling accomplished at 700rwhp. But now in light of this possibility, think of how far this will raise the bar! Shaft mount roller rockers, thicker deck, and more potential for cylinder fill at high rpm's. Revving to 7krpms would be amazing. Magazines will be featuring v6 mustangs and tbirds more and more. V6's in the 10's will not be out of the ordinary. And if we get these heads made and we get more publicity, think of other manufacturers that will see us. Billet cranks? More manifolds? Headers? Blocks? Who knows. But it has to start somewhere. I'm all for it and I will be buying a set, as long as its not a direct bolt-on head.

-Thomas

Toms-SC
10-11-2006, 01:14 PM
Assuming Mustangs can use these heads, has this posted on a Mustang forum yet? :confused:

007_SuperCoupe
10-11-2006, 01:20 PM
I would say that some of us are not waiting for a part to be produced by a big company. I like the idea of both the heads and the manifold, but I'm building my own manifold because I don't have the desire to wait for a what-if manifold.

I ask, what if the manifold I'm building is better than the manifold that could be offered from this company? I would still want to be able to use it with these heads to get the most out of my application. But if the parts "interchangeability" is not there, then I'll be limited by my heads (comparatively speaking). I'd very much like to see the interchangeability be retained.

Thomas
10-11-2006, 01:30 PM
yes, it is posted on v6power.net And it will fit the mustang just as easily as the thunderbird.

These engines will never make the power they can if you want interchangeability. You could just re-modify the manifold to work with the new heads? All it would require is a change of the head flange.

rzimmerl
10-11-2006, 01:40 PM
did anyone post on this site www.3.8mustang.com they have over 5000 members, I ran across that site last week.

XxSlowpokexX
10-11-2006, 04:24 PM
A direct bolt-on head would be a waste of time and money.

You do realize you can create a new manifold for a set of direct bolt on heads...Just a thought you know?

In order for this to be profitable they need to sell...TO as many people as possable..The more people the less it will cost and the longer it will be around in production.....I would hate to see a limited production run and then damage a head beyond repair and just not be able to get a replacement..

As I have said previously I would love to have an all out race head...But I dont think that benifits the majority only a few


These engines will never make the power they can if you want interchangeability.

Matts not making power???...Coulda fooled me!

I'm not picking on you but reality is that a head can be produced that outflows even the wildest ported 3.8 head yet still be more reliable, hav ea better valve train geometry..And make loads more power...All using a bolt in design

Super XR7
10-11-2006, 04:44 PM
As far as interchangablility, only the headers need apply. Thicker deck, e,i,e,i,e,i valve arrangement, better quality casting, ditch the OEM manifold concept, for use by all 3.8's and you will have a package that will sell big.
There are a couple of new manifolds that are being looked at by the memebership and I am sure they would love to do another for a better head. There may also be some commerical aftermarket manifolds developed if these new heads would work for the 3.8 mustang crowd.

Mike

CMac89
10-11-2006, 06:17 PM
I would say that some of us are not waiting for a part to be produced by a big company. I like the idea of both the heads and the manifold, but I'm building my own manifold because I don't have the desire to wait for a what-if manifold.

I ask, what if the manifold I'm building is better than the manifold that could be offered from this company? I would still want to be able to use it with these heads to get the most out of my application. But if the parts "interchangeability" is not there, then I'll be limited by my heads (comparatively speaking). I'd very much like to see the interchangeability be retained.
This company has messed around with many intake manifolds and all of the changes or designs from scratch have been worked out for the better.

There are many features to building an intake manifold that can be checked for efficiency especially if the equipment is available.

These castings are built by "professionals."

CMac89
10-11-2006, 06:22 PM
You do realize you can create a new manifold for a set of direct bolt on heads...Just a thought you know?

In order for this to be profitable they need to sell...TO as many people as possable..The more people the less it will cost and the longer it will be around in production.....I would hate to see a limited production run and then damage a head beyond repair and just not be able to get a replacement..

As I have said previously I would love to have an all out race head...But I dont think that benifits the majority only a few

Matts not making power???...Coulda fooled me!

I'm not picking on you but reality is that a head can be produced that outflows even the wildest ported 3.8 head yet still be more reliable, hav ea better valve train geometry..And make loads more power...All using a bolt in design
Like I said in the other thread, it wouldn't be a race head. It's more of an all around head that can be what you want it to be. Race castings are more along the lines of Pro-Stock heads or others with small combustion chambers and over 400cc intake runners. We won't be even close to a race head.

It's not that Matt isn't making any power, but there is a factor of limitation once you reach certain numbers. This is the whole reason for better castings. What they do out of the box is one thing, but the potential of them is a huge part.

seawalkersee
10-11-2006, 07:53 PM
I marked that I would buy if it were complete for @ or about $2500.

Now for the meat and potatoes, what are we getting here? Not to sound like a smartass but think about it. What does this post say? Are they 1.6 2.02 valves? Does complete mean I have to sell my headers for the set that will not come with it? By that I mean COMPLETE means I can bolt them on with my existing setup INCLUDING exhaust and go right? Valve covers bolt on? Pushrods are the right length for the new cam I want but do not have? Will the shaft mount rockers that will be needed to keep down the deflection be a portion of the cost? What about the gaskets for this interchangable top? Will it be the correct top for my Whipple? Will it have the proper water passage at the rear of the drivers side head that connects to the front water passage? Like I said, I would LOVE to have a set, but I want to KNOW that all these concerns have been thought of. I have to think like this becasue I have a five speed and look at the trouble we have with getting parts for it.

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
10-11-2006, 08:53 PM
It's not that Matt isn't making any power, but there is a factor of limitation once you reach certain numbers. This is the whole reason for better castings. What they do out of the box is one thing, but the potential of them is a huge part.

What I was meaning (and said) was that I'm sure a good head can be made using the factory intake port spacing. Yes added material to do EXTRA porting is definitely ideal. Although flwo numbers woudl have to outdo what a set of lets say Steig heads produce out of the box.


ditch the OEM manifold concept, for use by all 3.8's and you will have a package that will sell big.


Port spacing and location shouldnt be altered if not needed..Thats all I am saying..For instance some of us already have intakes custom made for our applications...Many of the hardcore people do. Mayeb we want to reuse....Maybe a stang or sc guy wants a stealth look. If we are talking non race head I dont see a reason to do so. And thw only thing that will sell BIG is something that can use a factory intake as well as an aftermarket one..Keep in mind a manifold can be created for these heads regardless.

mywhite89
10-11-2006, 10:51 PM
If there was a package available right now, I would be first to own it. Probably last to install it, but first to own it:rolleyes:

CMac89
10-11-2006, 11:35 PM
I marked that I would buy if it were complete for @ or about $2500.

Now for the meat and potatoes, what are we getting here? Not to sound like a smartass but think about it. What does this post say? Are they 1.6 2.02 valves? Does complete mean I have to sell my headers for the set that will not come with it? By that I mean COMPLETE means I can bolt them on with my existing setup INCLUDING exhaust and go right? Valve covers bolt on? Pushrods are the right length for the new cam I want but do not have? Will the shaft mount rockers that will be needed to keep down the deflection be a portion of the cost? What about the gaskets for this interchangable top? Will it be the correct top for my Whipple? Will it have the proper water passage at the rear of the drivers side head that connects to the front water passage? Like I said, I would LOVE to have a set, but I want to KNOW that all these concerns have been thought of. I have to think like this becasue I have a five speed and look at the trouble we have with getting parts for it.

Chris
This soon in the process details can't be fully narrowed down until deals are being made. Keep in mind that we will try our hardest to keep minor, if at all, any changes to make the heads work. As a response to you questions I will explain what is most likely to be:

As far as what valve size would come with the head as a standard assembly I really don't know. The size will be larger than what we are capable of running as of now.

The heads will hardly affect the exhaust manifold/header location. This really shouldn't be something to worry about. Again, once the design is layed out and we start getting into high details of the heads then we will know what is an issue or not.

Valve cover pattern will stay the same. If a thicker/taller deck is decided upon then longer pushrods would need to be used. Shaft mounted rockers isn't a mandatory item. Only optional.

Provisions for several different intake tops will be looked at. Further down the road we will see what interests there are in running what type of forced or NA induction system.

Coolant passages will either make a change for the better or retain stock.

To make things better there are just changes that are going to have to be made. If not, you just end up with a stock casting. Things are going to have to be changed a little, just like it is to get a Whipple, AR, or turbo to work. It won't be extensive.

Randy N Connie
10-12-2006, 09:13 AM
I would like to see heads with raised intake ports ,about 3/4 inch +.
And have the same port shape and CCs in all three intake ports.
Would need a new manifold and fuel rail. This is not a problem.
I have some more stock & a couple aluminum intake flanges machined.

Have the exhaust ports raised 3/4 inch +. This would involve making
a new header for exhaust side.

A head that has ports that look close to the raised style a Buick
6 cylinder performance built head has. With thicker deck. That
bolts to the Ford 3.8,4.2 block.

The only stock related part that would be nice to keep with a
new head use would be the valve covers. And cast the letters
SC in the front corner of head.:)

Randy

Thomas
10-12-2006, 02:30 PM
A good head wouldnt use factory port spacing. The same amount of CC's in each port could not be achieved this way. So they could be ported out larger, but they still couldnt be as good as they could. Yes, Matt is making tons of power, woo. But what is his limit? You think he can make more than 30psi safely? His heads are maxed out for sure. What more can be had with his motor other than a larger turbo (again)? The right aftermarket head with a new manifold could net him another 200hp!

I have an intake custom made for my application, but I wouldnt mind making another one starting with the base this company could provide with the heads. Cut some aluminum square tubing and make a tunnel ram intake that would kill anything else out there. I'm all for it. I'm all for the developement of these engines as a whole. Most mustang guys that would spend money on these probably already had a custom intake planned anyhow. It would need one. The stock intakes would NEVER flow what the heads could.

-Thomas

bowez
10-12-2006, 03:03 PM
Its begining to look like me if this is too work OE port location must be retained, but doing so would there be any gains to speak of?

While yes ports can be moved but then you must buy a complete setup (lower, heads, headers, exhuast, and maybe upper) and now price just shoot through the roof.

IMO, from a business stand point the race application of the 3.8 is never going to be big enough to justify a product line like that; if the SC market was larger maybe but since the Mustang is what carries the 3.8 that need to be the target market (we SC guys can continue to adapt the Mustang parts, like Cougar people say the Mustang is just good for parts).

Thomas
10-12-2006, 03:42 PM
People are assuming that raising the exhaust ports would require new headers. If it were only riased 1/4" or 1/2" it would not make a difference. The exhaust can move upward that much. Some motor mounts sit higher than other, this raises the exhaust port, and the exhaust still fits. That is not the main concern here.

Uniformly spaced intake ports would be the best solution. XR7Dave says they are already R&Ding new manifolds. There are people R&Ding manifolds for the exhisting heads aren't there? Would you ever buy those to add power to your setup? So do both at the same time. Making a manifold for a blower would be easy. Just a box with an inlet port and 6 outlet ports and some coolant passages. It would be easy compared to making a tunnel ram or long runner manifold, and the v6 guys consider a custom manifold a MUST for making big power anyway. I made a custom manifold, as have others for their non-roots engines. I'll be making a tunnel ram in the future as well, and so will Matt. But if we intend on getting these heads, then we might as well wait until we have the heads to make a new manifold that will suit it rather than stock ones. IMO, newly designed ports will just take advantage of what most people plan on doing anyway.

-Thomas

bowez
10-12-2006, 05:07 PM
I will admit I don't totally understand the needs, though I am understanding the logic. I know its just a very vauge estimate but the prices quoted I don't see many people willing to pay that for the heads plus also needing an intake, and I am one of those people I don't need power that much.

Micahdogg
10-17-2006, 10:35 AM
I would support this effort Dave.

Micah

seawalkersee
10-17-2006, 05:49 PM
So...when, should this make it into fruition, WILL we know something? I have been in the process of having a manifold built by Manny and was getting ready to send it back to him to raise the roof. NOW (of course after all my headache and efforts) this comes up. I am going to put it back together with the M90 just so I can drive it...but I will be hoarding parts to get the new top end built. I just want to know how this looks to whomever is pushing this....Is it going to come to be? How long from now (Yeah...I wannna know from todays date) is this going to be? What is it going to take? What is the cost and what all am I going to need? I know some of these things have been covered in this thread, but understand my personal disapointment as I stand in my garage and stare at a large pile of parts and have to wonder which way to move.

Chris

XR7 Dave
10-17-2006, 05:59 PM
You and all the rest of us have all kinds of stuff that may or may not be useful for with new heads. Such is the way of progress. All I can say is think of all the great used parts that will be on the market if/when this does happen. It will be a great day for Supercoupes. :D

You are right though, all those questions have been answered already. There's not much else to add. ;)

Micahdogg
10-18-2006, 10:43 AM
NOW (of course after all my headache and efforts) this comes up.

As they say at the bank...the Pioneers catch all the arrows!

Micah

RancherV6Lee
10-18-2006, 01:14 PM
I really think there needs to be a 100% bolt on solution first, they will sell MANY more heads that are direct bolt on then ones that will require new intakes and such. The BIGGEST problem we have is the exhaust port which could be raise 1/2-3/4" and probibly still use stock manifolds or exisiting header (I've never had any trouble bolting 302 headers/manifolds on a 351W which is about the same 3/4" difference). Or intake port design is plenty good to support airflow and I still haven't seen a set really maxed out since the Exhaust ports have ALWAYS been the choking point. The could raise the roof some and make custom intake for the new heads BUT don't raise them to the point of not working with a stock intake. If they could build a head that flows ~260 intake ~220 exhaust that bolts directly inplace they would sell alot of them, then offer the same head with CNC porting that bumps the flow up to ~280Intake ~240 exhaust. I think both would be possible while still being able to use stock parts, there are ALOT of ported factory intakes and such that people would like to reuse (like me). I'd be all in for a set of CNC heads that flowed those specs while still allowing me to bolt on my stock ported lower and sheetmetal upper intakes. Thats plenty of airflow for anyone keeping the engine under 6000rpm (like my 4.2L stroker.)

Kurt K
10-18-2006, 01:49 PM
I think this has already been discussed in this thread. A singular bolt-on solution doesn't really buy us anything except a new (different) bottle-neck. I cannot believe that if this is a bolt-on solution more people will rush to purchase. Also, do you honestly believe that most of us want to throw away parts that we already have? Of course not, but we see the step needed for significant progress.

It's like saying an MP3 is bolt-on performance. Sure it is, but the majority of the performance isn't realized until there are upgrades to some of the supporting equipment (OD pullies, IC, etc). With the exception of underdrive pulley, I cannot think of a singular performance part for the SC that doesn't benefit further from upgrading other equipment.

Just my 2 cents.

Randy N Connie
10-18-2006, 04:29 PM
Here is a couple things that would help are heads.

Raise the exhaust ports.
This is to give more space between the bottom of
header, header bolts, and the 4 head studs and nuts
on the heads deck..With more space here because
of raised EX ports, more aluminum can be added to
casting to build a thicker deck or taller deck that
the head stud nuts rest on.

If done this way the total head casting could stay
close to stock height.but have a thicker deck,with
ample water jacket space.

Ford has made this head casting as light as possible.
There is plenty room to add aluminum to all the ports
thickness on the outside of the casting.


The middle intake port need to be move to the center
of the head. And shaped as the outside intake ports.
Both outside intake ports have the proper directional
shape to promote swirl in the combustion chamber.
And there looks to be plenty room to move this port
And not compete with pushrod or head bolt passages.
And still have plenty room for new water passage flow
& volume. Also I would raise the intake ports entrance,
and injector boss.

And get rid of the ramp in the intake ports in front of
the bowl area. With this removed and reshaped .We
would pick up 50 to 80 CFMs.


And build a new manifold. We need a better intake
manifold as much as we need a better head.They are
both junk,built to fit under a stock hood.

We need a better head, 2.5" raised manifold,
intake manifold plenum, fuel rail.

And lowered motor mounts and raised hood to
fit it all under.

Thanks Randy

bowez
10-18-2006, 04:56 PM
I really think there needs to be a 100% bolt on solution first, they will sell MANY more heads that are direct bolt on then ones that will require new intakes and such. The BIGGEST problem we have is the exhaust port which could be raise 1/2-3/4" and probibly still use stock manifolds or exisiting header (I've never had any trouble bolting 302 headers/manifolds on a 351W which is about the same 3/4" difference). Or intake port design is plenty good to support airflow and I still haven't seen a set really maxed out since the Exhaust ports have ALWAYS been the choking point. The could raise the roof some and make custom intake for the new heads BUT don't raise them to the point of not working with a stock intake. If they could build a head that flows ~260 intake ~220 exhaust that bolts directly inplace they would sell alot of them, then offer the same head with CNC porting that bumps the flow up to ~280Intake ~240 exhaust. I think both would be possible while still being able to use stock parts, there are ALOT of ported factory intakes and such that people would like to reuse (like me). I'd be all in for a set of CNC heads that flowed those specs while still allowing me to bolt on my stock ported lower and sheetmetal upper intakes. Thats plenty of airflow for anyone keeping the engine under 6000rpm (like my 4.2L stroker.)

I agree with Rancher (as I have stated eariler), but from a business stand point not performance. Those that want/need a head that will require a new intake are a small fraction of the market, and while from a performance stand this would be ideal to jump straight too in a business point this anit going to work.

If take a step toward a new head that flows in the neighborhood of what ports avaible (SSM, super head for example) and still have avaibility to port, and retain stock mounts, these would be sell in higher volumes than one that out flows it but requires extra new hardware. Once these heads have taken hold then start the design of the new head that will out flow and require new intake.

Will get further with incremental steps as opposed to giant leaps. Remember we (SC/Mn-12 guys) are not the market the Mustang crowd is and in general they get a Mustang to mod because its cheap and easy.

midgetchaser
10-18-2006, 06:04 PM
why would you produce heads that have monster flow and not make an intake for it. the intake is one of the most restrictive parts. why make a really good head thats 100% bolt on when its not really going to make anymore power than has been made with ported heads, without an intake to go with it.

if your going to spend the money to get new heads that could potentially make more power than anything before why not get the intake to go with it.

i think i could sacrifice 100% bolt on to get killer heads and a new intake.

XxSlowpokexX
10-18-2006, 06:45 PM
You could make heads that use a factory intake spacing and make a new manifold for it as well..



I was thinking....If someone can make 600 + RWHP on a set of stock worked heads..Is it heads I really need?

Miller
10-18-2006, 06:52 PM
nevermindddddddddd

midgetchaser
10-18-2006, 07:26 PM
You could make heads that use a factory intake spacing and make a new manifold for it as well..



I was thinking....If someone can make 600 + RWHP on a set of stock worked heads..Is it heads I really need?

factory intake spacing would fix that problem.

yea if i was planning on using the stock manifold i would just port some stock heads and save the money for something else.

CMac89
10-18-2006, 07:39 PM
Moving the port to the center would be the most optimal for performance. It would be a huge deal breaker though. The valve order would switch, therefore meaning that you would have to buy a new, different, designed cam and get new pistons if fly-cut's are necessary for the lift you want to run. I would do it without hesitation, but i'm not everybody.

An intake manifold would be built because it would make no sense no to. Almost every head that is casted, there is an intake manifold to match it. Intake manifold design is an issue for hood clearance, but we will find out what is best.

I'm fully aware of the coincedences of each individual scenario. This is partially why this thread exists. The way I look at it individually is that whoever would buy a set of these heads, they have a mindset for performance. Having said that, why would someone shortcut the prices by using stock parts on them? You take shortcuts you get cut short. On power, that is.

CMac89
10-18-2006, 07:48 PM
You could make heads that use a factory intake spacing and make a new manifold for it as well..



I was thinking....If someone can make 600 + RWHP on a set of stock worked heads..Is it heads I really need?
If all an AR can make is around 450rwhp, then most think that the blower is solely the dicatator of that problem. If that's so then that means we are wasting our time trying to get better intake manifolds and heads. There are reasons that I can make NA 428 CI motors make 1200HP. It shouldn't make that much because it doesn't have a turbo on it.:rolleyes:

Shoving more air into the motor with a bigger blower/turbo isn't the efficient way to do it. I like to call those people "Supra guys."

Randy N Connie
10-18-2006, 09:26 PM
Moving the port to the center would be the most optimal for performance. It would be a huge deal breaker though. The valve order would switch, therefore meaning that you would have to buy a new, different, designed cam and get new pistons if fly-cut's are necessary for the lift you want to run. I would do it without hesitation, but i'm not everybody.



CMac

I don't think moving the center intake port,to the middle of the head..
That this change would require the valves to be reversed and then
would need new cam.

With the middle intake valve kept in the same location.And just move
the port chamber mouth to the center of the head. The port shape and
angle would look close to the same shape as the two outside intake ports.
After moving the port to the center. Look at a head the next chance you have.There is room it looks to me like.

Then check out how the swirl from the two outside intake ports bowl area flow to the combustion chamber. Moving The center intake port would
then match the outer intake ports bowl area to combustion chamber shape would then match,and promote better swirl in the middle combustion chamber.
And make port volume matching easier during port work.



Thanks Randy

Mike8675309
10-18-2006, 09:27 PM
That our heads have significant limitations as it relates to staying firmly planted on the block is a given. The only solution is a new head.

That our intake manifold seriously hampers the flow of even the stock head is a given.

New heads without a new intake manifold will be limited significantly.
New Intake manifold would benefit the bleeeding edge work on the stock heads, but still leave you with a head that lifts off the deck.

I'm in for new heads, and a new intake manifold would be great and basically required in my mind.

CMac89
10-18-2006, 09:41 PM
CMac

I don't think moving the center intake port,to the middle of the head..
That this change would require the valves to be reversed and then
would need new cam.

With the middle intake valve kept in the same location.And just move
the port chamber mouth to the center of the head. The port shape and
angle would look close to the same shape as the two outside intake ports.
After moving the port to the center. Look at a head the next chance you have.There is room it looks to me like.

Then check out how the swirl from the two outside intake ports bowl area flow to the combustion chamber. Moving The center intake port would
then match the outer intake ports bowl area to combustion chamber shape would then match,and promote better swirl in the middle combustion chamber.
And make port volume matching easier during port work.



Thanks Randy
I'm sorry, Randy. For some reason I was thinking that the port took a dogleg right. My thoughts were back asswards.:D

Wall thickness within the ports usually run around 3/8" thick. All features that it takes for a good cylinder head will be looked into. Intake ports, from stock, need raised quite a bit. This alone will pick flow numbers up a bit, but theres more to a head than flow numbers and will be looked into.

XxSlowpokexX
10-18-2006, 11:09 PM
are reasons that I can make NA 428 CI motors make 1200HP(some use superchargers or turbos to make up for lack of that compression)

High compression ratio, race gas and poor fuel economy are three unacceptable power making reasons why you make 1,200 hp N/A (unaceptable for a street car that is):D

Without a doubt a new set of heads and possably intake will make more power..EVen if only slightly above that which a set of ported stockers can provide, the fact that it would have a thicker deck and ward off head gasket failures would be a good enough reason why for someone who races thier v6 to go buy a set.

In reality we will not know what performance improvement we will realize untill the projects comes of age and is tested. We have a pretty good idea what heads do on our 3.8's can do (or not do) so when these come about we will have plenty of Data for comparison. I'm personally hoping for factory type intake spacing andboltup as my current custom setup caters around that.

But we will see.

CMac89
10-18-2006, 11:40 PM
(some use superchargers or turbos to make up for lack of that compression)

High compression ratio, race gas and poor fuel economy are three unacceptable power making reasons why you make 1,200 hp N/A (unaceptable for a street car that is):D

13:1 compression is kind of high, but it only makes a 90HP difference from 11:1. The motor would still make 900-1000HP, even with your desirable street car modifications.

Even if it isn't at that power level I still have a motor that makes 730HP with 9.0:1 compression. There's no compression there so why does that motor make 730HP without a blower/turbo? Stock carburetor, head/block castings, and crank might I add.

Thomas
10-19-2006, 12:15 PM
13:1 compression is kind of high, but it only makes a 90HP difference from 11:1. The motor would still make 900-1000HP, even with your desirable street car modifications.

Even if it isn't at that power level I still have a motor that makes 730HP with 9.0:1 compression. There's no compression there so why does that motor make 730HP without a blower/turbo? Stock carburetor, head/block castings, and crank might I add.

Because it's a big block?

we're looking at v6's here. You're really making a bad comparison, or something. I'm not sure why it was even brought up, or what your point is. A v6 needs more than vacuum to make more than 300hp in our current engine configuration.

But, aftermarket heads with sweet port design, custom 4.5 crank for 1800, hot cam, and custom intakes could net 400+hp N/A. Hell, the 4.5 SVO engine makes 500hp stock without modification. Is there a reason, you suppose? I see this being possible with our engines in the next 2-3 years, but we need this aftermarket boost that we're pushing for.

-Thomas

XR7 Dave
10-19-2006, 01:05 PM
Because it's a big block?

we're looking at v6's here. You're really making a bad comparison, or something. I'm not sure why it was even brought up, or what your point is. A v6 needs more than vacuum to make more than 300hp in our current engine configuration.

But, aftermarket heads with sweet port design, custom 4.5 crank for 1800, hot cam, and custom intakes could net 400+hp N/A. Hell, the 4.5 SVO engine makes 500hp stock without modification. Is there a reason, you suppose? I see this being possible with our engines in the next 2-3 years, but we need this aftermarket boost that we're pushing for.

-Thomas

You missed the point. People are saying "but he already made 700hp so why do we need better heads?" The point is that an efficient design does not require 30psi to make the desired power levels. It is easy to dismiss even 750hp as "big block power" but how many "big blocks" languish around at 500hp with commonly available aftermarket parts? More than you can count and the point Casey was making is that 800-1000+ HP is possible with a properly designed system of parts vs. the more typical 500-600hp that most big blocks make, even with a host of aftermarket stuff on them.

300 crank HP is quite possible with current V6 stuff, and 600 crank HP has been achieved with race parts (SVO). The point is that we could be looking at an ultimate capability of 450 crank hp n/a and -oh so much more- with boost. The point Cmac was making is that making great power with lower boost levels is possible and desireable.

Some people would say "well, I dont' want 600hp, I just want 400hp." Ok, suppose that right now that 400hp requires 20psi and flirts on the verge of detonation and fuel issues, requires a very efficient IC, etc. Now suppose that 400hp could be had with minimal boost, no IC at all, and was happy on readily available pump gas. Suddenly a great cylinder head starts to make a whole lot more sense.

Imagine a 350rwhp SC with no IC, 8psi, and a stock sounding cam. You'd be able to see the valve covers, change spark plugs, and run a full width radiator! A new head/intake manifold system would have massive benefits for everyone from mild to wild. It's not just something for the racers anymore...

BT Motorsports
10-19-2006, 01:59 PM
I'd like to hear Duffy weigh in his opinion on such a product;)

Paul

XxSlowpokexX
10-19-2006, 04:04 PM
I personally dont see a head and intake manifold doing all that is being touted here and more.,,But prove me wrong...And regardless I;d say I;d buy in just for the heck of it

CMac89
10-19-2006, 05:43 PM
Thanks for clarifying, Dave. That was the point completely.

Damon, what has been preached or brought up isn't from opinion. What we are saying comes from experience and nothing short of an epistemic point of view.

We aren't in paradox here.

Thomas
10-19-2006, 06:09 PM
ah, I interpreted the post incorrectly. My apologies. :)

XxSlowpokexX
10-19-2006, 07:35 PM
Now suppose that 400hp could be had with minimal boost, no IC at all, and was happy on readily available pump gas. Suddenly a great cylinder head starts to make a whole lot more sense.



Imagine a 350rwhp SC with no IC, 8psi, and a stock sounding cam. You'd be able to see the valve covers, change spark plugs, and run a full width radiator! A new head/intake manifold system would have massive benefits for everyone from mild to wild. It's not just something for the racers anymore...

WHen a set of better heads and intake allows us to run much less boost and still make the same power as a worked over set of stock heads and modified intake on a 3.8 with an m90 I will trully be amazed.

Exactly how much HP potential do you think this head will provide over a factory modified casting? Over a factory head??? WHat is the projection? I think that will clear things up a bit for me.

I do see many advantages of having a new head besides just making power and to be honest that is the only reason I would want a set..Valvetrain stability and a thicker deck are my main concerns and will surely be built into the design..

I'm assuming some computer generated modeling has already been done so where are we with that?

And yes I realize you are basing your preaching on knowledge gathered "whereveer".....But a true paradox would be a set of heads and intake combo that would do all that and more..Such as a magic elixer of some sort. If it can be done great. But I have yet to see that magic happen on almost any non "all or nothing" type engine combo....

I am not doubting anyones "epistemic" knowledge.....I just think there is a tad to much optimism on what benifits will be seen.

Basically its a wait and see as far as I'm concerned.

XR7 Dave
10-19-2006, 08:21 PM
WHen a set of better heads and intake allows us to run much less boost and still make the same power as a worked over set of stock heads and modified intake on a 3.8 with an m90 I will trully be amazed.

Exactly how much HP potential do you think this head will provide over a factory modified casting? Over a factory head??? WHat is the projection? I think that will clear things up a bit for me.

I do see many advantages of having a new head besides just making power and to be honest that is the only reason I would want a set..Valvetrain stability and a thicker deck are my main concerns and will surely be built into the design..

I'm assuming some computer generated modeling has already been done so where are we with that?

And yes I realize you are basing your preaching on knowledge gathered "whereveer".....But a true paradox would be a set of heads and intake combo that would do all that and more..Such as a magic elixer of some sort. If it can be done great. But I have yet to see that magic happen on almost any non "all or nothing" type engine combo....

I am not doubting anyones "epistemic" knowledge.....I just think there is a tad to much optimism on what benifits will be seen.

Basically its a wait and see as far as I'm concerned.

You are right, it is too early to be posting projected numbers either in the form of HP goals or flow #'s. However I believe that it is important for people to look at all the benefits that may be available with an improved part. We are not even remotely close to the potential of the motor with what we have. The mere fact that we run 24-26 deg timing with pump gas under what we think is 20psi boost is ridiculous. If the motor were actually receiving 20psi we wouldn't be doing that.

The problem is that we have all the heat and blower drag associated with 20psi but we have only the benefit of perhaps 13psi in the motor. Therein lies the problem.

Again, I'm quoting fictitious numbers but there is plenty of evidence pointing to those very conclusions.

tim
10-19-2006, 10:51 PM
YES!! more power with less heat. $2500 is nothing compared to what I have spent in the last few months to pick up a measley 40 hp. I am no expert but our intakes are a joke. With the right heads and intake maybe we can see the full potental of all the other work. Marketing wise if you had a choice of using a stock manifold or a better one would be ideal. It may not be cost effective if the Mustang guys cant use this part too.

XxSlowpokexX
10-20-2006, 08:01 AM
The problem is that we have all the heat and blower drag associated with 20psi but we have only the benefit of perhaps 13psi in the motor. Therein lies the problem.

Without a doubt we are generating major internal backpressure that shows up in the form of boost on a gague. But I think its more a function of cam specs/exhaust/IC restrictions and to a lesser degree heads and intake. Having worked on GN's with the TA heads(Keep in mind GN's have what I would say are worse heads then SC's) they proved to eb no magic elixer over modified stockers. However here your going from an iron to aluminum head (los of thermal efficiency however less prone to detonation) So there are tradeoffs in that alone.

I see a properly set up heads/intake/cam/header/larger blower combo having the most benifit(obviously so).FOr use with a stock IC or none at all ehhhh.

But well see!

CMac89
10-20-2006, 11:47 AM
I still have yet to see a motor that doesn't pick up tremendously from a set of ported stock heads to a good aftermarket casting. It's just simple physics and it completely relates to any combination.

GN's don't make over 1000HP because they have turbo's handed down to them from God himself. Power is ALL in the heads and intake. It will always be like that. Heads and intake allow potential and the cut-off point for HP. It is the dictator of the engine itself.

I've seen Buick's go from a fully ported stock head that flows 300cfm to an as cast 330cfm head and they pick up 80hp on average. I have went from a fully ported set of SuperDuty heads that flew 330cfm to a fully ported Edelbrock 210cc head and went from 730hp to 820hp. Once you get to these high of numbers it is hard to get HP. If you notice, i'm comparing good heads to a set of better heads. In our case it would be going from a bad head to a set of good heads. It's just a no-brainer.

No, I can't predict numbers, but I can induce that I have NEVER seen a combo no respond in a good way to a set of good aftermarket heads. Coming from a good porting of experience, these are next to the worse heads I have ever seen and there is nothing you can do to them to make them "optimal."

I have a good example for why heads/intake are the dictator for power. I know a guy that runs SuperStock that has runs a naturally aspirated V6. It has a splayed valve head running 11:1 compression, a tunnel ram manifold, etc... He made 699HP and runs 9.60's in a 3300lb. car. What happens when you put a turbo/blower on that thing?:D

I can predict that 450 crank HP being naturally aspirated would be quite attainable for these heads. I have a new goal, if this deal works out. I'm going naturally aspirated and i'm seeking for big numbers.

bowez
10-20-2006, 12:49 PM
I just thought If these heads come about wont the vaule of a SC go down?
Cause then it will just be the process of a few bolt ons and one could surpass the SC in mildly moded formed. We will need a lower made and quickly.

Thomas
10-20-2006, 01:07 PM
I just thought If these heads come about wont the vaule of a SC go down?
Cause then it will just be the process of a few bolt ons and one could surpass the SC in mildly moded formed. We will need a lower made and quickly.


people already prefer a mustang over a supercoupe, I wouldnt worry about it... the value is already pretty low.

seawalkersee
10-20-2006, 03:54 PM
Tim hit the nail on the head. I also think that after I and a few other people get these heads (I am already saving all my nickles and dimes) and intake combo, you will see more interest. People just dont want to drop a bunch of change on this sort of deal with out results that are garonteed.

As far as the head comparo goes, several years ago, I was watching the drag races and the two top dogs were running BBCs with FACTORY pontiac heads that were ported. Of course this was over a decade ago so I cant say what was available from the aftermarket, but what head do you think the top dogs are running now? Good head? Or better head?

Now LETS GET THE BALL ROLLING ON THIS SO I CAN HURRY UP AND WAIT SOME MORE...

Chris

CMac89
10-20-2006, 04:08 PM
Chris, Pontiac heads won't bolt up to any BBC block. The ONLY blocks they will bolt up to are Pontiac blocks.

Unless you were calling the Pontiac a BBC. They are just as different as a Ford compared to a Chevy motor.

XR7 Dave
10-20-2006, 04:59 PM
Tim hit the nail on the head. I also think that after I and a few other people get these heads (I am already saving all my nickles and dimes) and intake combo, you will see more interest. People just dont want to drop a bunch of change on this sort of deal with out results that are garonteed.

As far as the head comparo goes, several years ago, I was watching the drag races and the two top dogs were running BBCs with FACTORY pontiac heads that were ported. Of course this was over a decade ago so I cant say what was available from the aftermarket, but what head do you think the top dogs are running now? Good head? Or better head?

Now LETS GET THE BALL ROLLING ON THIS SO I CAN HURRY UP AND WAIT SOME MORE...

Chris

There was confusion a few years ago when Pontiac started branding BBC stuff to compete in Pro Stock. Oldsmobile did the same thing IIRC. I believe they sold Chevy parts with Pontiac logos to be legal in Pro Stock, if that is what you are referring to. I don't think any factory head has been competitive in the top levels since the 70's. What you might be thinking is of a head produced by GM vs. a Brodix or something else.

XxSlowpokexX
10-20-2006, 05:29 PM
I have a good example for why heads/intake are the dictator for power. I know a guy that runs SuperStock that has runs a naturally aspirated V6. It has a splayed valve head running 11:1 compression, a tunnel ram manifold, etc... He made 699HP and runs 9.60's in a 3300lb. car. What happens when you put a turbo/blower on that thing? .

It blows up :D

Just throwing it out there..The 4.6 mod motor (everyones favortite) that I have a liquid to air Intercooler hooked up to can make no more then 400RWHP...And the manifold design isnt half bad however the IC can use some work....The same engine with an intercooled vortech made well over 600 rwhp.

I still say as I always have that he m90 will be the restriction. It be interesting to see just how well the swap to the new intake/head combo would be on a basically stock factory setup...Hopefully it comes to fruitation and someone will find out...if compatable with a stock SC setup I will definately try that first..My teal car would be a great candidate.

How long are we talking before there will potentially be a head?

ironworker
10-20-2006, 08:31 PM
its off the subject but oooohh well

what about this use a 99 mustang intake maniflod off the 3.8 port and polish it .. port and polish heads and stick a procharger on it where ur ac is at .. i want better heads and an intake manifold..... pluse if u do this u can lose 2 belts and that will free up a lil more power too


the 99 to 2003 is a better manifold that they used in the mustang if it would fit i would try it

seawalkersee
10-20-2006, 11:20 PM
There was confusion a few years ago when Pontiac started branding BBC stuff to compete in Pro Stock. Oldsmobile did the same thing IIRC. I believe they sold Chevy parts with Pontiac logos to be legal in Pro Stock, if that is what you are referring to. I don't think any factory head has been competitive in the top levels since the 70's. What you might be thinking is of a head produced by GM vs. a Brodix or something else.
Not sure what to tell you. All I can remember was that the winner was the engine builder for the runner up. One of them had a split window Whorevette and both had the same engine. They were listed as BBC with Pontiac heads. I know BPO was completely different, but they had supposedly "mochined" it to fit. Sorry I can not tell you more...Like I said, it was a decade ago at least.

Now lets figure out when I am going to have to come off of my loot...I want a date for this.

Chris

Super XR7
10-21-2006, 07:24 AM
Can we solidify what we are going to do here with the new heads and get this ball rolling. I suppose the next step is a fact finding mission to discover what is possible and the initial cost. Guys after reading about David N going 10.6 with a 100 hp shot, it seems to me that there are a lot of people here that could duplicate his run with out nitrous if we had a decent set of heads and manifold. Can we have heads available for summer of 07, so that they could be installed for the next shoot out? Is this possible?

Mike

Kurt K
10-21-2006, 05:51 PM
Can we have heads available for summer of 07, so that they could be installed for the next shoot out? Is this possible?

Mike

Not knowing the details of what has already been discussed, I doubt this would happen by next year at all. I hope I'm wrong, but newly deisgned things take a while. Heck, didn't it take Thomas something like 6 months to get a vendor to make some DOT stainless steel brake lines for our cars....and that was a lot easier than designing new heads.

XR7 Dave
10-21-2006, 06:54 PM
For now we are gathering interest and making projections as to what the market will be for them when they are done. The amount of R&D, what exact configuration they take, etc., is going to be determined at least in part by the response we get from this thread as well as the other threads we have going.

I will only promise that before Christmas this year the decision will be made, one way or the other. After that, what timeframe would remain is entirely up to the actual designer/producer.

XxSlowpokexX
10-22-2006, 12:23 AM
Heck, didn't it take Thomas something like 6 months to get a vendor to make some DOT stainless steel brake lines for our cars....and that was a lot easier than designing new heads.


Unless DOT stands for Polka Dots they wernt DOT approved :O)
(see post in group buys on stainless lines for a lil more info on some I found..WHy I mentioned anything)<!!EDIT

Dependant on how much time is spent on computer generated design..And I am assuming running models, the initial design can be put together rather quickly (within a few months)..Taking that and putting it into production is a whole other issue dependant on how fast they can get things rolling. I'm not to familiar with modeling software used for this type of work but am very familiar with other types of modeling software (used for building design). It really all depends on how high on thepriority list this may be

Kurt K
10-22-2006, 01:06 AM
Unless DOT stands for Polka Dots they wernt DOT approved :O)

Now I know I can't believe everything I read on the internet, but

Paul, yes they are DOT approved lines.

Orders will be sent out in batches of 10, so the first batch should be going out very soon.

Thomas

And read from the label on my brake lines "DOR 571.106" (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=777&section=571.106&section_toc=2073)

Anyway, to de-whorify (sp?) this thread and bring it back on the topic of new heads, like you said priority on the production list would definitely be a big driver in this whole process.

oldschoolmuscle
10-24-2006, 03:37 PM
i would go for it. :D

seawalkersee
10-25-2006, 04:19 PM
i would go for it. :D

You're not that cool:D

Chris

Randy N Connie
10-26-2006, 06:36 PM
I have been testing out my new raised SC/bird manifold/plenum.
The way things are looking. I don't think I will need any
aftermarket heads/manifold. To reach my goals. So you
can scratch my name off the ginnypig list.

Thanks Randy

Super XR7
10-26-2006, 06:41 PM
I really hope this thing goes somewhere. New heads would allow us to take these cars to a new level of performance. Don't let this die! How many head molding/casting places are left in this country? In doing a internet search they all seem to be in asia.

Mike

Pablo94SC
10-26-2006, 06:54 PM
I've always wanted to see new heads and lower intake made for our cars. The lower intake is, in my humble opinion, the main reason we consistently blow the HG around the #3 cylinder.

I'd definitely be interested in a set sometime in the near future.

Pablo94SC
10-26-2006, 07:14 PM
I really hope this thing goes somewhere. New heads would allow us to take these cars to a new level of performance. Don't let this die! How many head molding/casting places are left in this country? In doing a internet search they all seem to be in asia.

Mike

We don't necessarily need a place in the US to cast the heads. The most expensive and time consuming portion of creating new castings is in design and testing, followed by creating the new molds.

If we can have a set of stock heads cut and measured, and then have those measurements put into 3-D modeling software, we'd be able to continously re-design our heads and test them using computer models. Once we're satisfied with the results, we can send that information to any manufacturer to cast a set of heads.

All we need is to find someone with access to the measuring/modeling equipment (say at work), and then the engineers and tinkerers among us can see what we can come up with. This, of course, is probably the hardest part of all... getting us to agree on a design. LOL

XR7 Dave
10-29-2006, 01:59 PM
We don't necessarily need a place in the US to cast the heads. The most expensive and time consuming portion of creating new castings is in design and testing, followed by creating the new molds.

If we can have a set of stock heads cut and measured, and then have those measurements put into 3-D modeling software, we'd be able to continously re-design our heads and test them using computer models. Once we're satisfied with the results, we can send that information to any manufacturer to cast a set of heads.

All we need is to find someone with access to the measuring/modeling equipment (say at work), and then the engineers and tinkerers among us can see what we can come up with. This, of course, is probably the hardest part of all... getting us to agree on a design. LOL

Good points, but the reality is that a low production run such as this one being done successfully overseas isn't really a good option. We want 100 sets with 100% product quality. Not 1000 sets with 70% product quality. I don't think anyone wants to install a set of heads only to find out that the casting is flawed.

Then when you talk about design, whoever designs the heads will want 1) payment for their time, and 2) the sales after the fact. The designer is not going to put all their eggs in one basket and the final per/unit cost as well as initial R&D investment will be balanced to provide a profitable product lifespan. So basically the more units we can gaurantee we can sell, the lower the R&D and per unit cost will be.

As for agreeing on a design, we don't plan to take this to someone who doesn't understand cylinder head design and ask for a new cylinder head. We are going to a company which has a much greater understanding of what a great cylinder head is than any of us here. Due to our limited knowledge there is very little constructive input that we can give this kind of person/company. For the most part we will be relying in their experience and knowledge which includes some very impressive Buick V6 experience. :)

tim
10-29-2006, 05:11 PM
I dont think having anything that requires skill to be built cheap over seas. China comes to mind. Rough casting an intake may be ok other than that I wouldnt do it. My brother works for a company that does short run specialty parts. The owner fired all but a few key people and has everything imported from China. Rejects run as high as 90% with 50 % being average. They still make a ton of money because of the differance in cost. Like Dave said it would be bad to bolt on a set of heads and find out they are junk.

bowez
10-29-2006, 07:51 PM
As far as the Far East goes, let me ask this how many of you have tools that say made in China/Tiawan?

Personally I wont pay hand tools from them and I certainly wouldn't trust a head made at that same level. Foundery work is a skill craft and best left to those with experience (that usually means Europe or the US). Now for high volume low quality unskilled cheap labor is just fine.

Micahdogg
10-30-2006, 11:29 AM
Dave doesn't get to use his die-grinder as an example either. That thing is a freak of nature.

Micah

XxSlowpokexX
10-30-2006, 01:01 PM
Due to our limited knowledge there is very little constructive input that we can give this kind of person/company. For the most part we will be relying in their experience and knowledge which includes some very impressive Buick V6 experience.

I agree with Dave 100%..The only thing we can have input on are things such as do we want to have to run a special intake or speacial headers or even a special piston. Once we tell them what a majority of people would liek to see produced then they can design based around those parameters. Of course we can always say build the best..And we will end up witha yates type head which isnt compatable with anything factory 3.8 SC related.

So there will be compramise but to what extent is up to us in reality. WHat will we buy??

Are we willing to have to buy new headers/pistons/intake to use these heads?

Maybe just intake...Maybe just exhaust...You get the idea.

The more user friendly in my opinion the better. If they can create a great head that can accomadate factory parts as well as any aftermarket (intake headers etc) that would sell best.

As far as China castings...Teh best you can expect to get from china would be raw castings with final machining and finishing done here. With the initial run of these heads as David has stated you really want 100%. Doing it inhouse in the USA is best...In the future if its a good seller perhaps they can look toward an overseas suplier..Of course I say buy USA...Its worth the extra bucks

So have we decieded on any design parametrs as mentioned above? (intake/exhaust /piston)

seawalkersee
11-07-2006, 06:50 PM
I ALWAYS hope to see this thread pop up every day. I cant WAIT to get a set...Provided I can still use my pistons and exhaust. The rest is all negotiable.

Chris

Mike8675309
11-07-2006, 09:47 PM
Only piston issues I can imagine would be folks that went above deck with their rod lengths rather than just zero.

CarlisleLandOwn
11-08-2006, 02:07 AM
Me thinks someone should contact said company and tell them to give us their 5.0 heads minus 1 cylinder ... let everyone else pay for the R&D. As for intakes, quit complaining and start spending. Sheet metal intakes are built every day, start by giving up some cash. You simply aren't going to have an intake built FOR you at the $50 price tag everyone wants to pay.

sccrewzer
11-29-2006, 02:22 AM
I agree I would be more interested if they were direct bolt on so we could use our stock equipment, for those that can upgrade some things do it we all know once you start a project theirs no end.

seawalkersee
11-30-2006, 11:56 PM
By stock parts, what exactly do you mean? Pistons? Injectors? Hoses? Headers? Intake?

Not to sound like an @hole but most of this has been discussed. I think that as long as I can use my existing pistons, the rest is all good. I just hope it comes about.

Chris

Pablo94SC
12-01-2006, 02:47 AM
In my hunt for a machine machine shop in NY with a 3.8L torque plate, I heard something that caught my attention. Some mechanics are using SC heads on N/A motors to prevent new HG failure. Apparently the thicker SC heads are not warping in N/A conditions. That gave me an idea. Why not take a Steig-type head, weld some meat onto the bottom, and then make a cast of it?

Now, I don't know exactly how the newly cast heads will look before machining, so I have know idea if it would work. It's just something that popped into my head. If nothing else, increasing the head's thickness is definitely something we should look into. Greater surface area means they should be less prone to flexing/warping and cool better.

XxSlowpokexX
12-01-2006, 02:59 AM
Paul I think a thicker deck would be in the equation..The 94/95 SC heads suppossedly have a thicker deck then earlier heads and the 96 and up N/A heads are comparable deck wise to the SC heads however have thinner valves and alledgedly can be ported a tad bit more and flow better due to a thinner valve stem diameter.

I think the obvious weaknesses of the 3.8 head that can be easily addressed would be..Deck thickness, material to port and such. Reshaping of the chambers valve placement and intake and exhaust port location and configuration are the tough ones..

Any new news on this?

XxSlowpokexX
12-01-2006, 03:02 AM
By stock parts, what exactly do you mean? Pistons? Injectors? Hoses? Headers? Intake?

Not to sound like an @hole but most of this has been discussed. I think that as long as I can use my existing pistons, the rest is all good. I just hope it comes about.

Chris

Yeah it has been beaten to death. But to be able to at least use factory existing parts would be a plus. EVen with some aftermarket 5.0 heads that do indeed still use factory intakes and headers....A piston change is required due to valve relocation and angle.

Being it will most likely be one head produced and not a line of 3 or 4 to choose from...WHateve rit is in order to sell will have some compramises..Again..ANy progress?

Pablo94SC
12-01-2006, 03:13 AM
I couldn't think of "deck" for the life of me while typing that out. Add material to the deck. DOH!!

427Cammer
12-01-2006, 03:15 AM
Was just thinking about this today -- what if *SOMEBODY* were to build a custom set of heads with a matched intake for the SC motor -- Edelbrock, for instance?

Today, I can buy aftermarket heads for Ford FE V8s -- a motor last produced by Ford in ~1970? How many folks are running FE motors TODAY? I can also purchase full-boogey aftermarket heads for Buick 455s and Pontiac V8s -- both of these motors are long since out of production -- not to mention full-tilt aftermarket block castings for above motors.

Bring it on -- count me in for a set of SC heads and intake.


Cammer

Pablo94SC
12-01-2006, 03:18 AM
One more question - would the new lower intake manifold allow coolant passage between the back of the cylinder heads, or will it be blocked off like the current setup?

seawalkersee
12-01-2006, 11:18 AM
The main reason for this so far is that others have found that the intake is the restriction point of these motors. Now with that being said, for the lower portion or deck to be raised, we would need to match that with the intake in order to make a substantial match. With a larger deck, in turn is going to riais the port and move it away from the centerline of the engine. So all of that needs to be taken into consideration for this. That is why I am SOOOO for the upper end combo.

Chris

007_SuperCoupe
12-01-2006, 11:30 AM
The main reason for this so far is that others have found that the intake is the restriction point of these motors. Now with that being said, for the lower portion or deck to be raised, we would need to match that with the intake in order to make a substantial match. With a larger deck, in turn is going to riais the port and move it away from the centerline of the engine. So all of that needs to be taken into consideration for this. That is why I am SOOOO for the upper end combo.

Chris

Chris,
Remember too that not everyone will want the heads. If it is interchangeable with the stock parts, then a person could get the manifold, not the heads and still bolt it on their car. And have improved performance.

There's a very small number of people who build these cars for the absolute maximum they can take. If we are going to put something together, it's got to cater to the masses, not those who really want a race head, but don't want to call it that. Our stock heads in ported form can flow plenty of air to accomplish nearly everyone's hp goals. If this ends up not being interchangeable with the stock parts, it will essencially be a "race head" even if people are not willing to call it that. Sale numbers will be down from projected numbers and I'm sure that the casting will then be short lived. It's all about the money. The money will in the masses, not the few. The more interchangeability we have with these, the more items (whether heads/manifold or both) will sell.

seawalkersee
12-01-2006, 11:39 AM
The way I see it is this: TFS, Edelbrock, GT40 etc. heads were probably all considered race heads at some time. But I am sure that more than just a few of us will want to add 20psi of boost to their cars. In order to keep the heads from lifting, they really need a thicker deck. Now think about the first part of this, how many people have aftremarked heads on their cars? Lots, even if they have just upraded (like I have for my 5.8) to a better (GT 40) flowing head.

I am not saying you are wrong Sam, because from a business sence you are 100% correct. But I would not want to hinder out of the box performance based on compatability from just the matching intake that people wanted to keep stock. I think it would be a step in the wrong direction performance wise.

Chris

007_SuperCoupe
12-01-2006, 11:54 AM
I'm looking at it from a different angle...the heads that I have will be more than capable of producing all the power that I will want out of my SC. I would, however, like a manifold that will be able to support the flow of the heads. Dave D has effectively shown that the stock manifold does not come close to supporting the flow capacity of some quality ported heads. That alone limits the performance capability. I think that there's more to be had with the stock heads (in ported form, of course) if the manifold issue can be fixed. The problem though with that is fitment. It may not be as much of a concern for aftermarket, but it will at least have to fit under a Mach I hood.

I've been working on a manifold design that I think holds promise...but I don't see it becoming more than a one-off for me at this point. And I may fail at the attempt as well. But there just isn't another option out there as far as manifolds go right now. The way that I see it is that the heads are only holding back the very few who want to take the Ford 3.8 SC engine to the absolute limit. The heads that I've got are capable of meeting my hp goals...and my goals are higher than most would think too. The piece that will be holding me back it the stock manifold. I'm not even convinced that a raised roof manifold will provide the support that I will need for the flow of my heads. I definitely don't need to flow 300 cfm to reach my HP goals...that's reserved for the very few who want to take this platform to it's ultimate limit.

XR7 Dave
12-01-2006, 12:53 PM
Sam, you are missing the point.

Perhaps we should do a poll asking how many stock cylinder heads have cracked. This is something you may not think about unless you've had it happen to you. I've had it happen. Not once, many times. So have others. Your ported heads might be just fine but what happens when they crack next year? How will you feel about that? Just pulling the heads, getting them welded, your time, the gaskets, machine work (they will warp when welded) and all of the sudden the ported heads aren't such a bargain. I even had a set of heads that passed visual and pressure testing but cracked when bolted onto a motor. You just don't know how close the head is or isn't to failure.

Talk to a metalurgist and ask what the duty cycle is on aluminum. Every detonation event flexes the stock head. Think about that. I talked with a welder/metalurgist/machinist who used to do 3.8L cylinder heads for the shops in my area. He said he welded up countless 3.8L cylinder heads and he is glad he doesn't have to do it anymore (he changed his business slightly). He said the all crack the same way and he said that the castings vary a lot. Some are extremely porous and some have a lot of impurities in them. They can be extremely difficult to repair because of this.

Bottom line is that they aren't going to last forever. One can say "well, I don't plan to drive the car forever". Well, when is that crack going to form, and how much of a bother is it going to be to you when it does happen? All good questions, no easy answers. Since we are seeing many cracked heads on OE 100K-200K mile motors logic would tell us that we are right in the middle of the end of the duty cycle for many heads. I firmly believe that a lot of people would love to eliminate that variable from the equation on their SC's.

Another misconception is that heads lifting is even a primary concern. It is only a part of the overall picture. Somewhere along the line people are forgetting that the current cylinder heads do support 600+rwhp. The question is, do you want to run the 30psi that is necessary to acheive that?

You can lift heads at 12psi as easily as you can lift them at 20psi. Tuning has been a big problem for SC's, moreso than boost or anything else. Don't confuse tuning issues with cylinder head problems. They are two different but related issues.

What a great cylinder head WILL do is allow you to make more power with less boost. Would people be interested in a cylinder head that would allow them to make 350rwhp without an IC? I think they would. Think how much simpler life with an SC would be if you didn't have to mess with an IC, still be able to run a 12 sec 1/4 with the right complementing parts, and retain great streetability. How great would it be if the same combination of parts with the addition of an IC kit would be able to generate 500rwhp and still retain all the driveability?

I think that some people are selling the SC very short because of limited vision and expectations. We've already shown that a standard SC motor is capable of a reliable 400rwhp, all we need are the parts to make that something attainable for more people. I have all the specialized parts sitting in my garage to have the fastest SC on the planet. I don't need new cylinder heads to be "competitive", what I'm looking at is making that accessible to others. I'd like to see the SC reach the same cult status as the GN's have and I firmly believe we can do it. No other car prior to the GTO can offer what the SC did and still does. However, we MUST update the powerplant or we will lose any hope of this ever happening.

That's my opinion. ;)

XxSlowpokexX
12-01-2006, 01:17 PM
Chris,

The point is that even most 5.0 "race heads" (non yates type) can use factory intakes and headers. Of course who would use a factory intake with a set of race heads? Likewise I can hook a "race type" EFI 5.o intake to stock heads

The thing I see is that the more interchangable the better. Perhaps someone already has modified heads and wanst just the intake or vica versa. Perhaps someone wants for the most part a factory look and appearence. Perhaps someone wants to keep a stock hood and the intake will not allow that.

You can improve a head significantly and still stay within the realms of stock intake and even exhaust spacing and location. You can even raise an exhaust port and still manage to be able to use factory parts to an extent.

You need not look further then what Edlebrock, TFS and AFR have done with SBF heads and still being able to stay within factory parameters. I believe a head/intake combo that can do that will be best for everyone. Sure we can create a 4.5 SVO type head....But how many people would that help? Even with a highly warmed over engine.

XxSlowpokexX
12-01-2006, 01:21 PM
Dave D has effectively shown that the stock manifold does not come close to supporting the flow capacity of some quality ported heads

I still dont think that has been proven under boosted applications let alone under N/A applications:O) No legitimate testing has been done to date (and I can get flamed for saying that as well.

Yes the factory intake can most definitely be improved upon..How much without poking a hole in your hood is to be seen.

XR7 Dave
12-01-2006, 01:41 PM
No legitimate testing has been done to date (and I can get flamed for saying that as well.
If you want to go that way, you can say that no qualified testing has been done on any part for SC's. Dwelling on that fact won't help anyone though.

The basic parameters for the head have been laid out in this thread already and people continue to assume (without reading) things that are false.

1) The head will likely retain the stock port arrangement so that a stock intake can be bolted on. It may work rather poopy but it will fit. This was determined to be a deal breaker from nearly the beginning. Ditto for the exhaust manifolds.

2) It is pretty clear that the exhaust ports will be raised.

3) The valvetrain will be different. There is no reason to retain the stock valves or hardware as it is crap from the get-go. It will accept readily available aftermarket parts. Most likely SBF or SBC parts.

4) Valve angles and placement might change slightly as may spark plug location. Most SC cams are mild enough that piston/valve clearance most likely would not be an issue anyway and for custom applications it may be necessary to do something with the pistons. This is all conjecture though as those details have not been addressed yet.

That's about all that is to be said at this point. As I have said above, we are hoping to possibly be able to offer a non-intercooled option that would put the whole setup under the stock hood for those who want a stealthy combination. There is no reason to believe that even with a new intake manifold and IC that the blower can't fit under any readily available aftermarket hood.

XxSlowpokexX
12-01-2006, 01:48 PM
Dave sounds great!..Seriously..Everything i wanted to hear (which never happens)

007_SuperCoupe
12-01-2006, 03:32 PM
The basic parameters for the head have been laid out in this thread already and people continue to assume (without reading) things that are false.

1) The head will likely retain the stock port arrangement so that a stock intake can be bolted on. It may work rather poopy but it will fit. This was determined to be a deal breaker from nearly the beginning. Ditto for the exhaust manifolds.

2) It is pretty clear that the exhaust ports will be raised.

3) The valvetrain will be different. There is no reason to retain the stock valves or hardware as it is crap from the get-go. It will accept readily available aftermarket parts. Most likely SBF or SBC parts.

4) Valve angles and placement might change slightly as may spark plug location. Most SC cams are mild enough that piston/valve clearance most likely would not be an issue anyway and for custom applications it may be necessary to do something with the pistons. This is all conjecture though as those details have not been addressed yet.

That's about all that is to be said at this point. As I have said above, we are hoping to possibly be able to offer a non-intercooled option that would put the whole setup under the stock hood for those who want a stealthy combination. There is no reason to believe that even with a new intake manifold and IC that the blower can't fit under any readily available aftermarket hood.


Actually, Dave, since you are in on this to an extent you will have more of a voice to the manufacturer than we will...as a representative, so to speak. And until you just said it, we had nothing to do but assume and debate. But now that you've come out and said what you think will be included in the design, now we can all look toward the product.


And I don't believe that I've missed the point at all, Dave. I'm all for a better head and manifold design. However, the problem is making it a reality. You and I both know this. In order to make it a reality, we have to be able to show that the company making this will make a profit. There's two ways to make a profit...set the price so high that only the few with deep pockets can purchase the product and production will stay low, or make the product available to the maximum amount of consumers, thus keeping the price low. My point from the beginning of this was interchangeability. Without it, I do not see this becoming a sustainable reality. Sustainable reality in this particular application means interchangeability. And now that you've said that it will likely have that aspect, then this portion of the debate is pretty much over.

My only concern about this whole thing is that there will only end up being one production run...the company will see that there isn't money to be made in it and will walk away. I personally am looking forward to this and as I voted...when I've got the $$ I'll get it. But in the meantime, I'm not going to sit around and wait for something that might be for something that is here and I know I can have.

tim
12-01-2006, 03:38 PM
I would spend the money to be competive period. Better Manifold to go with it great!:D

Pablo94SC
12-01-2006, 04:08 PM
In my opinion, the lower intake manifold is more important for us to have made, and made in quantity, than the heads. The stock heads should be able to be welded and ported by any qualified machine shop. They may not flow as well as a new head, but you get my point.

As for the debate on race heads... I think the one thing most people missed is that the machinist should be able to make the heads work with Ford 3.8's of any year and type with just a few minor CNC program changes. Want one for a Mustang... done. Want one for the aftermarket lower intake... done. In the end, it's all about the machining. As long as the cast is good, they shouldn't have a problem with demand.

XR7 Dave
12-01-2006, 04:13 PM
There's two ways to make a profit...set the price so high that only the few with deep pockets can purchase the product and production will stay low, or make the product available to the maximum amount of consumers, thus keeping the price low.

Not quite. R&D costs are pretty much a fixed amount. It costs X dollars to produce one cylinder head. This has to be covered within a reasonable amount of time. Whether that is up front, 60 days, 120 days, or 1 year is up to the operating practices of the company doing the work. This may be somewhat negotiable and depends on the interest which is what lead us to this thread in the first place. If we are certain of enough sales, then the R&D costs can be spread over a greater number of units. If we can't assure any sales, then costs may have to be covered 100% up front.

In order to make a product, after R&D costs are covered, there must be a reasonable profit for the company producing the part. This is a per-item cost and is generally not negotiable. It takes a certain % of profit to keep the lights on in manufacturing facility. A manufacturer will not typically charge a premium based soley on a perceived market or lack thereof. A large company will have further cost benefits if the runs are particularly large. We are working with a smaller company so this is not such a big factor as all their products are short run productions but the greatest portion of the cost of a low production # run is a recouping of R&D costs. This is of very great importance to us with this.


My only concern about this whole thing is that there will only end up being one production run...the company will see that there isn't money to be made in it and will walk away. I personally am looking forward to this and as I voted...when I've got the $$ I'll get it. This is one reason why it is so important to get as much support as possible from the target customer base. If we can get the company to spread out the R&D costs over a large production run then that will guarantee availability. If we can't present a viable long term business opportunity for the company then initial costs will be higher based on the need to recoup R&D costs over a smaller # of units. Showing market for more sets will help ensure that production and pricing meets our needs.

This was perhaps the biggest downfall of the BHJ balancer thing. We went to BHJ with projections of perhaps 10-20-50 units. No one accurately anticipated the market for the balancer. As a result BHJ priced (I believe) their product to recoup R&D over a very short # of units. Now, 4 years later and many hundreds of units later BHJ refuses to revisit their price point (primarily due to a lack of competition) and then add to that exclusive vendor practices and price protection and as a result we end up paying much more than we need to. We are trying to avoid that situation completely with this endeavor. Support from club members and SC owners will absolutely have a direct impact on our successs with this aspect of the proposal.


But in the meantime, I'm not going to sit around and wait for something that might be for something that is here and I know I can have.
I don't suggest that anyone put off plans waiting for these heads to come into fruition. I firmly believe that money invested in performance parts today will not be a loss if something better comes out. Used SC parts have a great market and even when you factor in some loss based on upgrading parts over time, the end result is that the products you are able to buy down the road are either much less expensive or offer many more advantages in a large part due to those who spent the money in the first place keeping progress active and alive. It's hard many times not to penny pinch when looking at your performance budget but I feel that as long as you are careful what you spend your money on and make wise choices you will end up better off by staying actively modifying and upgrading than you will be waiting and hoping for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

If nothing else, my Steig heads may end up helping Scott Long finally break out of the 14's. ;) Seriously, someone else may benefit from the money I spent in the past. I'm ok with that if it means that SC's are faster, we get more respect, and some of us get some real press. I thoroughly enjoyed my performance parts when I had them and I'm happy that someone else is enjoying them now. IMO that's all part of the cycle of progress.

XxSlowpokexX
12-02-2006, 04:29 AM
Dave hit it on the head (and what I was thinking from day 1)...The main reason why a universal fit head would be a great idea....Universal not meaning cheap but meaning it can use stock type intakes and exhausts. There are a heck of a lot more 3.8's out there then just SC's..The more this head can sell...The less expensive it will be and perhaps the longer they will be for sale in the future..
The more I hear statements like that...The more I know this is a realistic concept that can work

seawalkersee
12-02-2006, 01:13 PM
I have never doubted it would not work. I think that a realistic number of Cyl heads (pairs) that would sell off of the first run would be 50. There are going to be vendors who will want to jump on this and a few mustang guys too. So probably more like 25-30 individuals would buy right off of the first run.

Chris

CMac89
12-02-2006, 02:13 PM
Keeping the stock port arrangement would be a big deal breaker for the split port guys. If people can get 270-300cfm with the split port heads and an aftermarket SC head would be the same, then the split port guys aren't going to go for it. This narrows it down to people wanting to run a SuperCoupe style intake system for use of a blower. If some Mustang guy wants to run a turbo, NA, or nitrous motor, then they are going to stick with their existing split port setups if we take this approach.

Keeping a stock port arrangement will sacrifice a significant amount of potential with the heads. If you keep the stock port arrangement, then you favoring the certain amount of people that want to use a stock intake manifold and discluding those that want good potential out of an as cast piece. If you move the center port to the center of the head, to get best potential, then we would be doing vise versa.

Do you want something that has high potential for power, or do you want to sacrifice that center port so you can save $500, or so, to run a stock SC intake manifold?

The way I see it, there would be more interest, throughout the whole 3.8 Ford community, if a high potential head with a matching intake were offered.

XxSlowpokexX
12-02-2006, 04:28 PM
Do you want something that has high potential for power, or do you want to sacrifice that center port so you can save $500, or so, to run a stock SC intake manifold?


I dont think it has anything to do with saving money on an intake and more about making a head that can fit a multitude of cars. And if you cant get more flow then a split port head out of a brand new casting with larger valves using all of the R&D and technology accumulated since the birth of the 3.8 ford engine..Then something is seriously wrong. If I remeber correctly my Reworked steig heads flowed better then ported modifeid splitports at the time in both intake and exhaust flow numbers. The split ports are limited due to thier design

A new casting should outflow Steigs right out of the box

For me at least its not about saving money and everything about seeing a part come out for the 3.8 that will be around for everyones use for a long time comming.

XxSlowpokexX
12-02-2006, 04:36 PM
Also..

I dont know how much power we are wanting to make out of a stock block....But if you want to make a RACE head..You may just wantto add a few head studs to it and create a new block along with it. Being saving money is not an issue and surely our block will become a limiting factory to ultimate power potential..We already have the rotating assembly ok for a few ponies

Pablo94SC
12-02-2006, 04:43 PM
The way Dave described it, the new heads will flow ~300cfm out of the box. That's before any additional port work.

Now let's get back to the lower intake. Are we casting just a raised roof design, or are we considering ones for liquid/air ICs and N/A setups as well?

XR7 Dave
12-02-2006, 05:52 PM
Some of us are getting ahead of ourselves. ;)

300cfm is a target value. We don't specifically have a port that flows that well yet.

Steig heads only flow about 225-230cfm on the intake side. Split port heads have reached a level which kills those numbers. Steig heads do flow 225cfm exhaust through a stock SC valve seat. That's pretty impressive considering that Coy Miller heads flow about 190 cfm through a 1.625 valve. Bob actually stopped development of the exhaust port because the intake was so poor that there was no point in taking it further. With simply a larger valve 240cfm should be easy. With an 85% balance that means the intake needs to flow about 285cfm to keep up.

IMO the best intake that could be made would be a lower base to which various tops/adapters could be attached. Doing so will require that the manifold be taller than stock. Most likely that would mean for those who want to stay under a stock hood no IC would be possible. For this kind of person that would mean that power output may be limited to under 400rwhp. Boost would be limited to somewhere around 13psi (think GTP) and alcohol injection would be a huge benefit. However, think about the simplicity of such a setup. No IC. Hey, I have valve covers! Less weight. Less complexity. Greater efficiency.

A modular design would allow the addition of an IC with a raised hood, or a runner intake for NA or Turbo applications.

If it is done right it could be used with an existing air to air IC setup very similar to using a raised intake such as some people are using now or a blow down air/water setup like Mendola's project was.

XxSlowpokexX
12-02-2006, 11:25 PM
I believe the problem with the split port is that that you cant do much to the exhaust. No room. So you will never ever get teh proper exhaust to intake flow ration you want unless you lower those intake flow numbers down. The way I see it you can get a better set of single port heads for our application then that of split ports..Because of the ration of intake to exhaust flow we want.

Now supersix has these numbers posted for their stage 3 heads with 1.94/1.56 valves

260 intake
170 exhaust

Aproximately a 65% there

With a Nitrous car we aim for approximately 75%

And I believe my Steigs with the additional intake work I had done were at about 90% while I have seen other Steig head in 96% range give or take a few..To close but what ya gunna do???(lessen exhaust flow to get a closer ratio)

Now I guess a little off topic but nor really...

We perfer more exhaust flow with a nitrous, supercharged or turbo aspirated vehicle with the split ports (at leass from supersix) falling short from giving us the exhaust flow we need.

Now what is worse?....having to low of an exhaust flow/intake flow ratio with low exhaust flow or having to close of an exhaust/intake flow ratio with a much better exhaust flow?

And then....It would seem if a little less was done on the single port exhaust you can achieve that 75% or maybe a lil higher(unsure what you want with a supercharged engine) flow ratio percentage with a non split port head....Yes you would have less intake flow but you would have more exhaust flow and the proper ratio...

The way I see it lets say we are aiming for 75% ratio

Lowering the exhaust flow rating of a ported steig head (not mine but number I found)

232 intake (same as original Steigs)
175 exhaust (originally 225)

Now take the super six split ports and lower the intake flow rating

225 intake (originally 260)
170 exhaust (same as originals)

We can always reduce the flow of our better flowing half be it the intake or exhaust to reach the that 75% ratio. Here the Steigs come out a tad better..Heck maybe we dont even need that welded exhaust port to get 175cfm on exhuast

Now if we are aiming for an 85% ratio Steigs

232 (same as original Steigs)
198 (originally 225)

And for the Split ports (super six)

200 intake (originally 260)
170 exhaust (same as originals)

Now if we are aiming for that 65% which is exactly what a naturally aspirated motor tends to favour

The supersix stage III as is flow at a 65.38% ratio
260
170

And even a STeig single port to get there...(No welding needed)
232 (stay at 232 steig)
151 (originally 225 if we are talking Steigs)

Now it would seem to me if we are talking proper intake to exhaust ratios a SINGLE PORT HEAD will do the job more efficiently then a split port head. Naturally aspirated the splitport will shine.

So what does all this mean?..Nothing I was just bored :O)...

Plus flow benches are REAL BAD at getting a true reading of what an exhaust port will flow in real life situations..SO real world testing helps!

The way I see it...Single port unaturally aspirated..maybe ease up on exhaust flow number....N/A SPlitports....

Still I would rather have the extra exhaust flow on an unaturally aspirated motor then the intake


Anyway some interesting reading..Gotta love wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_flow_bench

007_SuperCoupe
12-03-2006, 01:18 AM
I agree, Damon. However, the research that I've done suggests a minimum of 80% intake to exhaust with 85%-87% being optimal. This alone is easily achievable on stock seat heads that flow some good numbers. I've got a set that flows 230/198 @ .600 and my machinist hasn't dipped into his bag of tricks to get more out of each. Shoot, my stock valve heads flow 224/162 at the same lift.

He also states that the split port heads are junk. All that intake is meaningless without the exhaust to support it. There just isn't enough to make the exhaust flow enough to keep up with the intake. Properly ported single port heads will out perform the splitport counterpart because of the exhaust.


Plus flow benches are REAL BAD at getting a true reading of what an exhaust port will flow in real life situations..SO real world testing helps!
Unless the flow bench was custom made and is tested on a regular basis for leak down and accuracy. ;)

Of subject, but still related:
Not sure if anyone else has seen it, but I happened to pick up a magazine while waiting at the store today...Mustang 3.8...SC heads making 598 rwhp and similar torque...on 30 psi... I didn't purchase the mag, although I should have, but 30 psi is about 8 psi more than what I've been told lifts the heads. The biggest thing that I saw was the fact that the combustion chamber had been reworked to lower the CR further. (Of course, that is all dependent upon the pistons he was running too)

XxSlowpokexX
12-03-2006, 05:26 AM
Sam thats exactly what I was getting at ...The split ports just do not support enough exhaust flow for a supercharged application

CMac89
12-03-2006, 02:02 PM
Plus flow benches are REAL BAD at getting a true reading of what an exhaust port will flow in real life situations..SO real world testing helps!


Untrue...

What the exhaust flows, on the flow bench with air, intensifies what the exhaust port will flow in real life situations.

Honestly, how many of you guys actually know why intake valves are always bigger than exhaust valves? Intake valves are bigger because air and fuel molecules are 30-40% more voluminess than Carbon and water molecules are as a result of combustion. Since exhaust gasses are more dense than air and fuel molecules, then a smaller valve is all that is needed to escape exhaust gasses. So if you can get a good number, on a flow bench, then it is going to flow a significant amount more in real life situations.

It is never better, in any case, to sacrifice intake flow to accomodate for a better I/E ratio. Exhaust flow isn't near as important as intake flow is. All an exhaust port is there for is to escape exhaust gasses. Mechanically very easy. The reason there is more experimenting done with intake ports is because it is harder to draw air into a cylinder than it is to push it out.

Just think about it. Say you have a bent valve and the motor starts turning over faster while being noticeable. Even though that valve is bent a couple thousands, there is slim-to-no compression in that cylinder. Now take a 1,600 thousands diameter valve and open it with exhaust gasses escaping, and it escapes pretty quickly. I'm not saying exhuast ports to need to be worked, but as far as to say that killing intake flow to accomodate for a good I/E ratio is just a wrong thing to do.

SC heads, also, have a short turn radius, on exhaust, only. Flow benches can determine CFM with volume, but guess what, they can't determine flow by length of the port if it is short.

bowez
12-03-2006, 06:49 PM
I don't know if the Splitport is a better platform but I do know it was not introduced until 99 and Ford stopped the 3.8 in 2004, and I know the 3.8 was in the FOX if not earlier; so the singleport has dates form ~83-98. Now we all can tell which year span is larger and that should tell us which format to build first.

Basically the Splitport market is only slightly larger than a exclusively SC product.

XxSlowpokexX
12-03-2006, 07:40 PM
I dont know..Supercharged engines require different i/E rations then n/a motors..And a flow bench even properly set up (if you can call it that) cannot account for the heat and how that changes the flow.

Idealy as has been stated a flow bench custom setup for a particular head is about the best you can get but will never account for everything and not real world flow in an operating engine

007_SuperCoupe
12-03-2006, 07:59 PM
Idealy as has been stated a flow bench custom setup for a particular head is about the best you can get but will never account for everything and not real world flow in an operating engine

Yet it is relatively standard across the industry. There are flow benches that can test under boost, but they are relatively few and as I understand it, custom made. However, it has been dyno proven that if you increase the performance n/a the boosted performance also increases. Thus, more flow n/a equates to more flow under boost. The flow under boost may not be as optimal as it could be, but it is still better than before..(speaking of porting). That is where experience comes into play. However, we're getting off topic here.

There is a difference in how certain flow benches are designed though and that plays a roll in what the flow numbers show as a result. This is particularly noticeable in the exhaust side. Without getting into the details, there are flow benches commonly used that inflate the exhaust flow numbers because of the design of the bench itself. Thus real world numbers are not as good as advertised. Most machinist don't care about that because it makes their numbers look better...if they are trying to sell a product. If they are selling a service, I've found that they are more truthful about it and either have a different flow bench or can compensate for the difference in their flow numbers. That is where some think that flow benches are not that great.

Super XR7
12-03-2006, 08:07 PM
Can we get 300 cfm from a new head with the current intake port configuration? If so, leave it as is. If the center intake port was to change what would the impact be for the other parts? The manifold for sure, cam?, headers?, what else?.

Mike

XxSlowpokexX
12-03-2006, 08:37 PM
Mike basically it would affect the manifold from a bolt on point of view.

I know how Flow benches work and function and even one that can account for a boosted engine still cannot acount for all variables.

Of course flow benches are industry standard..But I wonder how well computer modeling works...I'm just not up top speed with it

seawalkersee
12-03-2006, 11:31 PM
Screw all of that and check this out:D
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/116_0307_ford_302_v8_engine_buildup/
100 friggin HP from a head swap. 4cc difference but they dont list the HG used. I have to wonder how they scewed the numbers, but that CANT be that far off. We need this design.

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
12-03-2006, 11:37 PM
Chris.....and without changing the any port locations :O)

Also added headers however

white95v6
12-03-2006, 11:58 PM
just for reference my single port heads flow 295 intake@.600 and the exhaust flows 259@.600. this is with 1.84 intake and 1.6 exhaust valves.

white95v6
12-04-2006, 12:00 AM
I
Of subject, but still related:
Not sure if anyone else has seen it, but I happened to pick up a magazine while waiting at the store today...Mustang 3.8...SC heads making 598 rwhp and similar torque...on 30 psi... I didn't purchase the mag, although I should have, but 30 psi is about 8 psi more than what I've been told lifts the heads. The biggest thing that I saw was the fact that the combustion chamber had been reworked to lower the CR further. (Of course, that is all dependent upon the pistons he was running too)

hmm wonder who that is. cause i only know of 2-3 over 500rwhp and i am the only one over 600rwhp.

XR7 Dave
12-04-2006, 12:01 AM
Well forget it then. We are all wasting our time.

white95v6
12-04-2006, 12:05 AM
Well forget it then. We are all wasting our time.

why.

i want a Aftermarket head. i was just posting my #s. they flow more at .700 lift. lol.

the is more then just Flow #s with a better desgined head.

XxSlowpokexX
12-04-2006, 12:44 AM
Even if our heads flowed wonderfully in fully ported form. Imagine an out of the box head that flows just as well with a thicker deck...That would sell me in and of itself

Reliability...strenght...Key words in my book

white95v6
12-04-2006, 12:48 AM
Even if our heads flowed wonderfully in fully ported form. Imagine an out of the box head that flows just as well with a thicker deck...That would sell me in and of itself

Reliability...strenght...Key words in my book

and don't forget about a Much better valvetrain.

XxSlowpokexX
12-04-2006, 12:57 AM
and don't forget about a Much better valvetrain.

Definitely

007_SuperCoupe
12-04-2006, 09:13 AM
hmm wonder who that is. cause i only know of 2-3 over 500rwhp and i am the only one over 600rwhp.

It was a red Mustang, '99 I think with a centrifigual supercharger. I'll have to go back and get the mag because I'm pretty curious about it as well.

XxSlowpokexX
12-04-2006, 11:29 AM
It had a morana upper modified SC intake..I know which car you are talking about..It was estimated power I dont think a dyno was involved...No dyno sheets were mentioned or shown.

I know where at least one other SC that USED to have 500 plus rwhp SC is with no nitrous? Once I get out of my financial hole of despair a turbo setup looks like the mighty fine way to go:O)..Heck maybe by then the heads will be ready:O)

white95v6
12-04-2006, 11:44 AM
It was a red Mustang, '99 I think with a centrifigual supercharger. I'll have to go back and get the mag because I'm pretty curious about it as well.

if you are talking about the one P-werks did then it was just a Tad over 500rwhp. but it was a 98-older

also we have seen video of a 99-up car. it had a Vortech Igloo intercooler and had taken off the Split port heads and installed some single ports. oh yea it had a Vortch T-trim and some nitrous. but we have seen very little info on the car. like no #s.

white95v6
12-05-2006, 12:00 AM
found some #s on it. it says he used a SC lower intake???

http://www.v6power.net/vb/showthread.php?p=273657#post273657

check it out.

XxSlowpokexX
12-05-2006, 04:53 PM
Thinking about wrong red mustang...You cant even see the intake on this one

XxSlowpokexX
12-05-2006, 04:54 PM
Sameeeeeeee As Aaaaboveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

white95v6
12-05-2006, 05:46 PM
Yah I mentioned that earlier..Ist a stock SC lower intake with a 4.6 flange and stock TB elbow mounted on top with log type fuel rails....


wrong. you better go look again. it has a Igloo intercooler.

Ira R.
12-05-2006, 06:40 PM
Well, I am glad you two seem to have come to some agreement on what we should be doing. Now, in simple terms, for someone without an engineering background, can you please tell me how this helps me any?? I understood it when the thread started. Basic all-around upgraded heads to fit several different applications. But now you have me thoroughly confused.

I am not looking to get a set of racing heads here, but am willing to spend a few bucks for a quality product. Now how in he$$ does what you two are talking baout apply to me and the vast majority of other SC owners who aren't looking build 400+ HP cars, but like the thought that if I change my mind I may not need new heads? Isn't that what this was all about; a one size fits almost all application of a much improved part?

Ira

XR7 Dave
12-05-2006, 08:53 PM
Unfortunately this thread has become very muddied up with a variety of ideas, arguments, and totally non-related chatter. It was supposed to be a place to discuss specific concerns and address specific questions about cylinder heads. Unfortunately it has gotten to a point where I can't make sense of it either. I have tried to keep it on track and keep people focused on what we are hoping to accomplish but it hasn't worked.

The idea was simply to create a part that we feel there is a need for that would help the SC evolve into something it currently is not. If people are not interested in taking that step then there really isn't any need for a new cylinder head as some people have pointed out. If a 12 second SC is fast enough for 99% of the people out here then there is no need for a better cylinder head and in fact, there is no need for a blower alternative to an M90.

People often forget, that in their quest for the elusive HP figure, that the current hardware that we have is capable of running 12's second's all day long. People can continue to spend money on bitchin bottom ends as they have done since I've known there was an SCCOA and run 12's and be happy. I mean really, isn't a 12 second street car fast enough?

Honestly, if people aren't interested in a car that scares you when they nail the throttle then people just don't need this stuff. Seriously. No offense Ira, but with good heads on your car and that twin screw the car will be somewhat dangerous to drive.

We talk about mighty GN's and big bad LS-whatever's but we are on the verge of being able to rub shoulders with these guys. It's not a kids sandbox we are talking about here. We are on the verge of some very fast cars with very real consequenses. :eek:

tim
12-05-2006, 09:04 PM
Wow what a grouch. Just build the heads and we will buy therm. I always dreamed about having more money in a SC than a Rolls Royce. 12 seconds, please. 10 maybe.

Ira R.
12-05-2006, 09:16 PM
Honestly, if people aren't interested in a car that scares you when they nail the throttle then people just don't need this stuff. Seriously. No offense Ira, but with good heads on your car and that twin screw the car will be somewhat dangerous to drive.


You misunderstood my point. I have no qualms about adding to my motor. Go ahead, scare me. After all, danger is my middle name :p :rolleyes:
Well, okay, maybe not anymore... :rolleyes:

So maybe I was too generic in my question, or too all encompassing in my question. As you said, this thread started out discussing an all around design change to an existing part that would allow it to perform in a high performance mode with the existing motor. It wouldn't eliminate the 12 second car; but maybe it would also make it less likely to break.

It has ended up a discussion between two people on what they thought was the best way to configure a head based on what the V-6 mustang guys were using. At least that's what i was getting out of it, so I asked the question; what the he$$ does that have to do with anything, since it doesn't seem to apply to any application here??

If my question is off base because I didn't understand what they were talking about then someone ask the right question, because I still don't get how that all applies to the head design you and others were discussing originally.

Yea. You know what, scare me. But I'm going to do it with the stock block and maximize what we do know makes these motors go just to prove the damn motor is better then anyone gives it credit for. :eek:

Remember, 346 RWHP and 13.05 @ 108.69 with a stock block, a real baby cam, a fuel leak, no snow kit, a stock radiator and an old fart for a driver.
Go ahead, make my winter!!:p ;) :D

Ira

Pablo94SC
12-05-2006, 09:52 PM
I want good heads and more than that, I want a good lower intake. If that means the lower intake cannot be used with the stock heads, and vice versa, so be it. I'd rather purchase new parts that have the potential to make insane power right off the shelf rather than customize stock parts and hope it's enough.

So get to it, Sparky. Let the people who want to use their stock parts use them, modify them, etc. Make these heads and manifolds for those of us who want the potential for something truly ridiculous.

Super XR7
12-06-2006, 07:37 AM
Can the new head with the stock intake locations flow 300 cfm?? and if so at what lift?

Mike

427Cammer
12-06-2006, 11:43 AM
Ira R. notes:


I am not looking to get a set of racing heads here, but am willing to spend a few bucks for a quality product. Now how in he$$ does what you two are talking baout apply to me and the vast majority of other SC owners who aren't looking build 400+ HP cars, but like the thought that if I change my mind I may not need new heads? Isn't that what this was all about; a one size fits almost all application of a much improved part?

Stick with modified factory heads. They will accomplish what you have articulated.

XR7 Dave responds:


Unfortunately this thread has become very muddied up with a variety of ideas, arguments, and totally non-related chatter. It was supposed to be a place to discuss specific concerns and address specific questions about cylinder heads. Unfortunately it has gotten to a point where I can't make sense of it either. I have tried to keep it on track and keep people focused on what we are hoping to accomplish but it hasn't worked.

The idea was simply to create a part that we feel there is a need for that would help the SC evolve into something it currently is not. If people are not interested in taking that step then there really isn't any need for a new cylinder head as some people have pointed out. If a 12 second SC is fast enough for 99&#37; of the people out here then there is no need for a better cylinder head and in fact, there is no need for a blower alternative to an M90.

The trick here is not simply a 12-second Bird -- it would be a 12-second or faster Bird that can EASILY and RELIABLY breathe well enough to turn 12-second times, or FASTER.


People often forget, that in their quest for the elusive HP figure, that the current hardware that we have is capable of running 12's second's all day long. People can continue to spend money on bitchin bottom ends as they have done since I've known there was an SCCOA and run 12's and be happy. I mean really, isn't a 12 second street car fast enough?

12-second (or faster) Birds with reliable head gasket configurations, without having to use sky-high blower pressures, possibly without having to run an IC and the associated underhood space-hog problems that prevent any easy way to change valve cover gaskets, spark plugs and wires, etc.


We talk about mighty GN's and big bad LS-whatever's but we are on the verge of being able to rub shoulders with these guys. It's not a kids sandbox we are talking about here. We are on the verge of some very fast cars with very real consequenses.

With sub-12-second Birds, we will collectively discover the next weak point in the powertrain configuration, once potential head gasket problems become less of an issue -- driveline items come to mind.

In the end, it would be nice to have a 12-second Bird that can be driven ANYWHERE, ANYTIME -- able to suck down MILES of highway without any problems or concerns, and proving to be very reliable for tens of thousands of miles, when treated properly. To wit, I have a buddy that has a warmed over 2002 Corvette that gets low-20s gas mileage on the road, and has nearly 50K miles on the odometer -- he hasn't hardly lifted a wrench to the Vette since he has owned it, and it will run low-low-13s all day on street tires, without NOS or blower -- a very reliable DRIVER that can cruise the freeways as well as the race track.

Dave's idea of MUCH better breathing heads with thicker decks could make reliable, long-lived 12-second Birds a regular reality -- if you want to run sub-12-second times, bolt on the go-faster parts to the new heads/manifold combo.


Cammer

David Neibert
12-06-2006, 01:54 PM
In the end, it would be nice to have a 12-second Bird that can be driven ANYWHERE, ANYTIME -- able to suck down MILES of highway without any problems or concerns, and proving to be very reliable for tens of thousands of miles, when treated properly.

We already have this.

IMO, A mid to low 11 second car that can be driven anywhere anytime on pump gas, would be a more worthy goal.

David

PS: I hope these heads along with a better flowing manifold do become a reality, because I'm already day dreaming about building a 650 rwhp supercharged 4.2 SC motor from the spare longblock that's sitting in my garage.

427Cammer
12-06-2006, 02:27 PM
David Neibert responds:


We already have this.

We do?

How do you figure? As reliable as a recent vintage go-fast Chevy smallblock AND able to turn consistant 12's?


Cammer

David Neibert
12-06-2006, 02:45 PM
David Neibert responds:



We do?

How do you figure? As reliable as a recent vintage go-fast Chevy smallblock AND able to turn consistant 12's?


Cammer

Yes....here are several examples from the fastest SC list. There are also a few 11 second cars that fall into the same catagory.


12.172 112.480 Todd Jelle & Michele Huffman
1992
auto
10/10/2005
Thunder Valley Raceway Park
1054 feet

# 9 12.196 115.700 Connie Dalke
1990 Cougar XR7
manual
08/17/2004
Dragway 42
700 feet

# 10 12.302 113.940 Dan Sly
1991
manual
10/20/2005
Milan Dragway
600 feet

# 11 12.480 101.430 Charles Brown
1995
auto
11/12/2006


# 13 12.501 105.560 Tony Serno
1994
auto
10/01/2006
Kil -Kare Dragway
880 feet

# 14 12.522 108.450 Andy Erickson
1991
auto
10/24/2004
Byron Dragway
756 feet

# 15 12.532 109.560 Jason Miller
1994
auto
08/13/2006
Mason Dixon Dragway
530 feet


# 17 12.621 107.560 Kurt K
1992
auto
10/06/2004
Gateway International Raceway
413 feet

# 18 12.716 108.050 Mike Puckett
1990
manual
04/17/2005
Atlanta Dragway
1100 feet


# 21 12.919 103.830 Jimmy White
1995
manual
10/20/2006
Milan Dragway
600 feet

David

XR7 Dave
12-06-2006, 02:56 PM
You guys are off point on this.

To create a new cylinder head requires a substantial commitment on the part of the company producing the part AND the people fronting the money to get it done.

If we do not have solidarity on the value of such a product then it will not go forward. I/we do not need people to jump up and down and say "do it" as this accomplishes little. What we need is for people to start making plans to participate in what I feel will be a revolution for our cars. The recent posts show just how easy it is for us as a group to become blase' about the idea. Either we grasp this opportunity to move forward or we continue on the path we are already on.

I don't think people really understand what this whole thing is about. There WILL be a large up front $$ investment needed to make this happen. You may not be the person who puts up the front money for this but you can rest assured that those who are going to be asked to do so are reading this thread. What kind of a message are we giving them? Without solidarity of purpose from this group, this project can not go forward. There is a certain amount of "what's in it for me" as this is part of anything but there is also a certain amount of "what can I do to help everyone else while also helping myself?"

This is also where the whole thing about port placement comes into partial play. How committed are we to reaching a new level? If we are going to let cosmetics or semantics get in the way of progress then it will do just that - get in the way. We decide if we will let that happen or not. Nothing is black and white, cut and dried, but these are things we must think about if this is going to work.

I can't answer what the capabilities of a port in the stock location will be. I do know that if only one port configuration has to be designed and then repeated x3 to complete the head then it will be cheaper to have made. If we have to spend lots of R&D time trying to make the center port work, only to find out in the end that it falls short, then what? At this point our money is already spent so we will be forced to accept whatever the result is. On the other hand we can abandon the port arrangement and forge ahead with plans for a new intake manifold (we are already working on this). Sure a new intake adds to the cost but imagine the possibilities.

I understand the reasons people have for wanting different configurations. My question is, how much do we want to compromise?

XxSlowpokexX
12-06-2006, 03:38 PM
Apparently we already have heads capable of making over 600rwhp and perhaps more...Would the block be able to withstand this EXTREME HP people are talking about. And how much abuse will a set of stock modified heads take?

The best point Dave D has mentioned in my opinion is that a head can be created that will be more dependable, reliable, can use better parts and flow better then a ported SC head out of the bock and perhaps even allow the use of a lower grade gas then would need be with our old design. Thats what I'm talking about. No rewelded exhaust ports...thick decks..Not worrying about valvetrain geometry with higher lift cams...

Custom intakes can be made....But heads....Oh we need a source for these!..And the more applications it fits..The more profits....The more REAL it become...For reality!

It has been said and is true...Tehmore power you can make N/A the more you will see iwtha power adder..An efficient head will do that. Less cam for same power..Nice..Less compression or boost for same power...nice..nice..nice

Now there are a few that want an all out race head and sc specific manifold that requires a 12 inch cowl hood....Let me ask you this

To go alog with that head and intake package (being you are looking for ultimate power) you will need a completely new rotating assymbly. Billet crank, rods, pistons. You will of course need an AR or an MPIII along with all the goodies....But of course at this point money is no object for ultimate power....So you get this far....You make XXXX amount of power...spend loads of money. And your stock block cracks in half.

No sence putting on a set of race heads on a stock or mildly modified motor. And the block will be our eventual breaking point..Which we dont know where that is yet. Moving port configurations does not make a race head but it does limit its usages. a REALLY REALLY GOOD head can be created that can be used for all. For those that want a REAL race type head should seriously just look into getting a 4.5 NASCAR motor as apparently money will be no object in your buildup anyway..And that will give you ultimate power/strenght........

Reality is the manufacturer is going toproduce what he feels the 3.8 community wants as a whole and can be profitable..Noone will make something at a loss. More consumers=more profits period

And will there be a compramise?....Any head that performs out of the box better then a set of extensively ported SC heads with all the benifits of an unmolsted better casting is not a compramise,,,It's great!

Toms-SC
12-06-2006, 04:42 PM
This thread scares me

XR7 Dave, do your thing and people will follow. :D

Pablo94SC
12-06-2006, 07:51 PM
I really don't see what the deal breaker here is. The solidarity you seek (from us, the Mustang guys, etc) will come when the manufacturer will guarentee the heads will flow XXXcfm intake and XXXcfm exhaust, and the stock port locations will be used.

One of the top rules in business is you have to be willing to spend money to make money. If the manufacturer you are talking to will not fork out a little time and money on R&D (computer modeling is a great tool), then find one that will.

Now all we have to agree on is what are the base numbers we want to see these heads flow. I'd think 280i/238e would be a great start. 300i/255e even better. Of course, these values can be changed depending on the machine work done after the casting.

So get started Sparky. :D

midgetchaser
12-06-2006, 08:02 PM
I would love to see a new product for our cars, especially if it makes me go faster. im in support of this and if i can help i will. lets get the ball rollin. :cool: :D

CMac89
12-06-2006, 08:08 PM
We plan to make the heads flow well as cast for mild applications, but then have the potential to gain much more flow whenever ported. The guy we are dealing with leaves around .250"-.400", depending on the application, of material throughout each runner so it makes a world of difference whenever ported to the maximum ability.

We don't know exactly what horsepower the stock block can handle. I would be more than happy to put as much horsepower through it as I can to actually make the block split. I'm not really concerned about it. Block filling is cheap, and it works wonders. I split one of my stock Pontiac blocks whenever it made 530HP. I then had the block filled, and now it's making 750hp with no problems. Has to be done right though.

Cylinder head manufacturers don't grow on trees. They are slim-to-none when working as a self-employed business. You can't get Edelbrock or any other manufacturer to build a head that can't be guaranteed sales up front.

Just think about how many people really know what a Thunderbird SuperCoupe is. If you go to a cylinder head manufacturer and tell them you have an SC and they say "what the hell is that?" then you know it's a complete deal breaker. To them, they think nobody has them because they won't look for the enthusiasts of a unique car type.

So since I know this guy that we are dealing with, then we are going with him as far as we can.

Pablo94SC
12-06-2006, 08:37 PM
We plan to make the heads flow well as cast for mild applications, but then have the potential to gain much more flow whenever ported. The guy we are dealing with leaves around .250"-.400", depending on the application, of material throughout each runner so it makes a world of difference whenever ported to the maximum ability.

Why introduce additional costs to the consumer that would be greater than just having them ported fully from the start? Not everyone can run down to Uncle Bob's Machine Shop to have their heads ported further. Most will have to ship their heads somewhere. Do it right the first time, not half-assed like you're suggesting.


We don't know exactly what horsepower the stock block can handle. I would be more than happy to put as much horsepower through it as I can to actually make the block split. I'm not really concerned about it. Block filling is cheap, and it works wonders. I split one of my stock Pontiac blocks whenever it made 530HP. I then had the block filled, and now it's making 750hp with no problems. Has to be done right though.

How much HP the block can handle is irrelevant to this discussion.


So since I know this guy that we are dealing with, then we are going with him as far as we can.

That, right there, is probably the worst reason to go with a company. The second worst thing is you're marketing these specifically for the SuperCoupe. You say to a manufacturer that these are for the Ford Essex 3.8L V6, used in Mustangs, Windstars, Thunderbirds, etc. Then show him all the people that are modifying and racing V6 Mustangs and Thunderbirds. Then show them the people who will purchase these just to reliably replace their less than great stock heads. If you show them that there is an untapped market and the potential profits to be had, they will build the parts you ask.

Like I said previously, if a business wants to make money, they will spend money. You think Charles of Magnum Powers started porting blowers AFTER we begged and gave him a lump of cash to do so? No. He bought a bunch of blower cases, ported them, tested the work, then brought them to market. People bought them because of a want in the community. If this buddy of yours won't do some of the leg work first without a big chunk of change from us, then he's not someone to do business with. Period.

Jesus folks, this is Business 101 stuff. *sigh*

midgetchaser
12-06-2006, 08:52 PM
That, right there, is probably the worst reason to go with a company. The second worst thing is you're marketing these specifically for the SuperCoupe. You say to a manufacturer that these are for the Ford Essex 3.8L V6, used in Mustangs, Windstars, Thunderbirds, etc. Then show him all the people that are modifying and racing V6 Mustangs and Thunderbirds. Then show them the people who will purchase these just to reliably replace their less than great stock heads. If you show them that there is an untapped market and the potential profits to be had, they will build the parts you ask.

i think they are marketing these to the mustang guys.

CMac89
12-06-2006, 09:41 PM
Every head available in aftermarket has an as cast and potential for porting capabiilties. If you make a head that doesn't have any flexibility then you will be stuck with one possibility. Leaving material for porting allows you to be flexible with the extent of modifications you use and HP you would like to acquire. Building a head with no flexibility for options would be half-assed. What base numbers we want, out of the box, hasn't been decided.

People don't seem to have a problem sending their stock SC heads out for porting and larger valves. Having an aftermarket head ported wouldn't cost any more than to have the stock castings ported.

There are other reasons why we are going to this certain guy. I know he is good at what he does, has over 30 years of experience, etc... I was being vague, of course that's not the only reason to do so.

Magnum Powers is a bad example against cylinder heads. R&D costs for cylinder heads cost twice as much, if not more than blowers and inlet plenums. If you go to a company that just wants to make money then you get a head just better than stock. This goes next to one of my pet peeve comments, "It's better than it was." If you go to a guy that would like to make money, but is interested in the performance enhancement needed for a certain combination you will get a good head along with their want for making money. You need empathy with cylinder head manufacturers and not just money mongrols.

bowez
12-06-2006, 10:00 PM
Reading closely to what Dave is saying, I believe the design is a well suited proposal and money permitting I will purchase a set of these. It appers that the producer is aware that a reliable head has more market than an all out race head. (Think of it this way pre-96 N/A heads warp and putting these heads out there give a new option to those people, not just an upgrade for those of us wanting <12sec rides).

XR7 Dave
12-06-2006, 10:05 PM
Why introduce additional costs to the consumer that would be greater than just having them ported fully from the start? No cylinder heads come "fully ported". There are many reasons for that.

It starts with the fact that casting is not that accurate in the first place. Even AFR's or Edelbrocks need dressing in certain areas to flow even their basic potential.

Then it follows that the needs of one application is different than another. Too much port volume will kill a mild NA application. I/E flow ratio needs are different on NA vs. turbo vs. nitrous vs. supercharged. In all cases a good head will benefit from porting and in all cases the quality of porting is up to the person doing the work. Forcing all people to pay for porting drives up the price unneccessarily. Having sufficient material there to allow a professional porter to increase the performance of the part for a specific application is only common sense and is part of the process with ANY performance cylinder head application.

To take it a step further, an ideal port with a fully custom intake might locate the port higher than can be sealed to a different intake manifold. This is also common practice when attempting to make a cylinder head or intake for that matter, work for a variety of applications. Some of the best cylinder heads out there are designed to be both ported and filled in certain areas to maximize performance depending on the end use. In the case of the OE castings there simply isn't enough material to radically change the basic shape even if you wanted to.

It seems you are simply suggesting that the base casting should have the port volume necessary to meet the needs of the highest performance application without taking into account the needs of the very same less extreme applications that you are suggesting we target. This is a contradiction of what you yourself have stated. A max flow/ported whatever you want to call it cylinder head will be far from ideal for all other applications. It's not good business sense to create a race only part knowing that it won't work well in mild applications yet count on those mild applications for the sales to make your product viable from a cost and production standpoint. You are in fact suggesting that people be forced to accept something that is wrong for their application. We feel that is unethical.
Not everyone can run down to Uncle Bob's Machine Shop to have their heads ported further. Most will have to ship their heads somewhere. Do it right the first time, not half-assed like you're suggesting.That is quite the insult to throw out without knowing what Cmac had in mind for "milder applications". It seems you are ready to toss in the towel at the mere mention that there might not be a "one size fits all" solution. Cmac deserves more respect. He knows what flow and port velocity is needed to achieve a variety of goals. These are things you haven't even thought of yet never mind determined what the needs might be.

How much HP the block can handle is irrelevant to this discussion. With all due respect it has a lot to do with this discussion. There are those who believe that the block is the limit to the power capabilites of our motor (as has been mentioned earlier in this thread) and that our current cylinder heads may be capable of reaching that level. A mindset that involves pushing beyond that limit is what started this conversation in the first place.

That, right there, is probably the worst reason to go with a company. The second worst thing is you're marketing these specifically for the SuperCoupe. You say to a manufacturer that these are for the Ford Essex 3.8L V6, used in Mustangs, Windstars, Thunderbirds, etc. Then show him all the people that are modifying and racing V6 Mustangs and Thunderbirds. Then show them the people who will purchase these just to reliably replace their less than great stock heads. If you show them that there is an untapped market and the potential profits to be had, they will build the parts you ask.

This is incredibly naive. While it is true that the 3.8 production numbers probably do rival the 5.0 during the years it was produced, to imply that a large manufacturer would be dumb enough to think that a significant number of those motors would be likely candidates for a cylinder head of this type is just incredibly short sighted.

Not that I consider my research to be exhaustive by any means, but I can assure you that the response to the idea of this product from the SC community is 10x what it has been from the Mustang community. There may be 10's of thousands of 3.8L Mustangs out there but there is a very small # that are interested in performance and have budgets to back up that interest. A idea of a new cylinder head hasnt' exactly resulted in a flood of response on the Mustang forums. You may not believe it, but the core support for this idea is right here. Supercoupes need this more than anyone else.

A manufacturer doesn't need us to tell them how many 3.8's were made. They pretty much know already. What we have to do is show them that there are enthusiasts who are willing to spend money on their 3.8's. So far we don't have the numbers to be able to go to AFR and get a cylinder head made. Sorry to burst your bubble.


Like I said previously, if a business wants to make money, they will spend money. You think Charles of Magnum Powers started porting blowers AFTER we begged and gave him a lump of cash to do so? No. He bought a bunch of blower cases, ported them, tested the work, then brought them to market. People bought them because of a want in the community. You are assuming a lot. You don't actually know anything at all about how Charles' business came into being or how it grew or why. It would serve you well not to make up history according to how you think it sounds good.

If this buddy of yours won't do some of the leg work first without a big chunk of change from us, then he's not someone to do business with. Period.Another very naive and arrogant statement. If businesses were so strapped for work that they have to come to an SC club who can't agree on ANYTHING for work then they probably weren't up to much in the first place. Seriously, this company has plenty of work and can't take on charity work. The bottom line is that if a business must choose between a job which pays $200/hr vs. one that pays $50/hr for the same work they would be foolish to take the $50/job. We have to make our proposition look attractive to the business in order to be considered. We aren't looking at a company that has excess capacity and is looking for things to take up slow time. We are trying to get into the cue with a company that books up production well in advance.

There are many ways to conduct business deals and calling us stupid while we explore the possibilities is not beneficial to anyone. Furthermore, posting inflamatory remarks after we have specifically asked for constructive input is very counterproductive.


Jesus folks, this is Business 101 stuff. *sigh*

Paul,

If all it took to put this together is someone with an idea and the time and energy to put a proposal together to hand to someone at Edelbrock then I'm quite sure any one of 100 members could have pulled it off already. We have both excellent salesmen and excellent businessmen here on the SCCOA.

Clearly it is not that easy or simple. We happen to be in a position at the moment of having the right people in the right places at what we have hoped is the right time. This is why we are being very serious about this. This is not an idea that will likely be entertained again so before you start in with criticisms and insults you might consider that the people working on this may have thought of some of these things in advance and considered a couple possible alternatives.

XxSlowpokexX
12-06-2006, 10:26 PM
If you go to a cylinder head manufacturer and tell them you have an SC and they say "what the hell is that?"

Thats why you say..3.8 mustang...:O)


How much HP the block can handle is irrelevant to this discussion.



Not everyone can run down to Uncle Bob's Machine Shop to have their heads ported further.

If you cant run down to uncle bobs machine shop to get extra porting where the heck are you going to get a motor built to handle a RACE TYPE HEAD!!!

What Casey has said is how almost every manufacturer does their heads...leave material to allow for extra porting....

A ported out really well flowing head may work for crud on a mild or even moderately modded motor...Think big cams high lift lots fo RPM...

AFR uses the same casting on a few of thier ford heads with a change in runner volume and or valve size...A head casting like that would be great..Can offer CNC porting

Anyway as always I have alot to say but Im thirsty:O)

But then again..What do I know

Pablo94SC
12-06-2006, 10:27 PM
Every head available in aftermarket has an as cast and potential for porting capabiilties. If you make a head that doesn't have any flexibility then you will be stuck with one possibility. Leaving material for porting allows you to be flexible with the extent of modifications you use and HP you would like to acquire. Building a head with no flexibility for options would be half-assed. What base numbers we want, out of the box, hasn't been decided.

People don't seem to have a problem sending their stock SC heads out for porting and larger valves. Having an aftermarket head ported wouldn't cost any more than to have the stock castings ported.

You're missing the point. These aren't stock heads we're talking about. How many people are going to want to spend $2500 (using the cost initally hinted at) on new heads, only to spend another $1000+ on getting them ported? Let's be honest. We, as consumers, are cheap and want the most bang for our buck. If these heads aren't going to flow much better than ported, stock heads out of the box, you aren't going to sell many. For the price, I'd even wager that people are going to expect these heads in "mild" form to flow close to 240i/205e at .500 lift.

So here's my suggestion. Offer "ported" heads from the start. It's not like the addtional machining involved at the factory level will increase the cost of the heads significantly. All that is involved is running different programs on the various CNC machines to take a little more material off here and there. That way your guy can sell mild (Stage 1) to wild (Stage 3) flowing heads, make additional profits that far offsets his slightly increased costs, and save the consumer a bunch of money. It's a win-win situation for us (the consumers) and the company making them.

Roadhawg
12-06-2006, 10:32 PM
Not that I consider my research to be exhaustive by any means, but I can assure you that the response to the idea of this product from the SC community is 10x what it has been from the Mustang community. There may be 10's of thousands of 3.8L Mustangs out there but there is a very small # that are interested in performance and have budgets to back up that interest. A idea of a new cylinder head hasnt' exactly resulted in a flood of response on the Mustang forums. You may not believe it, but the core support for this idea is right here. Supercoupes need this more than anyone else.


Dave,
I believe part of the reason there is lack of support from the Mustang community is a lot of 3.8 Mustangs use splitport heads. The Mustang owners are under the illusion that splitport heads are better performance wise and they do not see a benefit from converting from what they already have with splitport heads.

Pablo94SC
12-06-2006, 10:49 PM
Dave,

I'm not going to spend all night debating so I'll state this... we are going to continue arguing in this thread based on conjecture because as of now, these heads are nothing more than vapor ware. Until we see hard, cold facts about what prototype heads have done and can do, then, everything we do or say is in this thread is no different than farting in the wind.

You asked a question - do we want this product? We answered with what I think is a resounding yes. So do it. Make the heads and if we like what you made, we'll buy them. If we don't, so sorry. All that's left is for you to decide whether or not to take the risk.

XR7 Dave
12-06-2006, 11:01 PM
Dave,
I believe part of the reason there is lack of support from the Mustang community is a lot of 3.8 Mustangs use splitport heads. The Mustang owners are under the illusion that splitport heads are better performance wise and they do not see a benefit from converting from what they already have with splitport heads.

I am fully aware of this and I realize that there isn't a simple solution to this. We would love to have more support from the Mustang market but like anyone else, they will have to be shown what can be done with a great head.

Matt says he gets 296cfm from his single port head. I have no idea how he does it because according to all the other experts it's not possible. Think what he'll do with a real casting. :eek: People get stuck on numbers and fail to see the value of a superior product until they are drug bleeding and screaming to the proof. I know how it goes. Someone like Matt will have to get 400cfm from something before some people will believe.

That's not to insinuate anything negative towards anyone. I just realize that the Mustang market is not going to be forming the first line for new heads. There is no way anyone would bother making a bolt in split port head even if we were willing to switch over so those guys are going to be faced with intake manifold issues no matter what. It's a tough sell no matter how you look at it.

XR7 Dave
12-06-2006, 11:12 PM
Dave,

I'm not going to spend all night debating so I'll state this... we are going to continue arguing in this thread based on conjecture because as of now, these heads are nothing more than vapor ware. Until we see hard, cold facts about what prototype heads have done and can do, then, everything we do or say is in this thread is no different than farting in the wind. Paul,

I didn't post all that just for your benefit. I posted it in case anyone else was wondering the same things you voiced. I will not debate anything with you. I already state that I do not need people to go "rah rah build the heads, its the greatest!" I don't need a cheerleading section. What I was asking for is for people to look at themselves and what they want from their SC's and ask themselves if they are really on board for a step into what could be a whole new level of performance for their car.

It's hard for some people to do this. "But I've put so much work into what I have." "But I really want to know how far I can push the OE parts." You know the comments, they are all over the SCCOA.

In order for something like this to really come off successfully there are many people who will have to put their pride aside and let bygone's be just that. We have all tried hard with what we had to work with. Now what are we prepared to do in the future? More of the same? Do we like our little 12 second world or do we want more? Are we ready to play in the big sandbox or do we want to stay in our own back yard.

That's what I was talking about.

If you have something to add on that note, please do. If you want to argue, don't bother. This discussion has been muddied up enough already.


Make the heads and if we like what you made, we'll buy them. If we don't, so sorry. All that's left is for you to decide whether or not to take the risk.

Believe me, I have in the past and will in the future continue to do things at great personal risk for this community. It's nice when that is appreciated, but it is also useful to be reminded that this whole thing so very much "take it or leave it" to many people. I'm not afraid to sink or swim with this. I am just asking for a few others to get their toes wet at the same time. I don't think that is asking too much.

:)

Thunder427
12-06-2006, 11:26 PM
Yes hopefully we can see this product made.

But I would hope for around the same price as a twisted wedge head for a 302.

Its all up to supply and demand. If this can be offered. I think you will start seeing people taking on this platform, and more SC street machines coming out of the wood work.

Not to re-instate the obvious but, I think needless to say, we need this product. We need more worthy of a cylinder head to work with.

This will be great. But money IS an object when building these. IF it can stay in the low-mid 1K range. That will be fantastic.


We also have Casey McCarty (cmac) to thank for getting this going. ( he needs a little credit here ) Even though a nameless piece of an SC engine was mistakenly stolen for a rival car from the same shop.

And thanks to Dave Dalke for promoting the word to the house. Peace out house ~~~~

Pablo94SC
12-06-2006, 11:41 PM
It's not asking too much if we know what your question is. A deposit, refundable deposit, full price up front? What do you want from us? In return, we want some solid, baseline numbers from a prototype.

I know the community wants heads. They may baulk at the idea or price at first, but we all know that our biggest failure is the lack of quality heads. One only needs to look at the number of HG Monster threads to know that.

As for 12 second sand box or moving to a larger (smaller?) playing field, from reading the posts everyone wants to go faster. However, not everyone wants to pay to play. It will always be that way. However, if the heads you bring to market make getting into the 12s easier and more cost effective (ie with less additional mods), and add reliablilty, then there is no doubt in my mind these will sell.

white95v6
12-06-2006, 11:51 PM
ok the Mustang/f-150 split ports users are blind. they don't realize what a Good head is. they would be missing out if they turned there Backs on a good aftermarket head.

out of the box i would like to see these heads flow right around 300 if not more on the intake and by .600 lift. for the exhaust i would like to see 235-250 by .600 lift.


they guy who ported my heads ports heads and intakes for a few Nascar teams. he knows what he is doing. and has access to some Great minds.


also i would be interested in these heads. i have said it before. i know its not all about CFM. deck thickness,Valvetrain. over all head Streagth and the materail its made of makes a big difference.

so again lets make these heads. if they use the stock port location great(i think they would sell more). if they move that center port. ok then buy a intake and get ready to make some Crazy power.


and also TA will make a Block for us. i know of someone who has contacted them about it. :)

RedSCSpeedster
12-07-2006, 02:34 AM
i would like the biger sandbox to play in

XxSlowpokexX
12-07-2006, 10:11 AM
and also TA will make a Block for us. i know of someone who has contacted them about it.


Then they should be willing to make heads as well...And at the price TA sells heads for it would be below the price of these(think buick 3.8). Also to take into consideration.

If TA were to make a block. Then perhaps additional head studs could be added to the head casting we are working on now in anticipation of a new improved block. If we are talking RACE READY PARTS. Why not cover all the bases

Me I'm happy with exactly what Matt has pointed out which I have mentioned in the past thread and most definitely should be doable.

And a head that flows those numbers out of the box even with all stock port locations unported will bring us WAY beyond what we are seeng now.

And Pablo...If people who want these heads are cheap....They shouldnt be trying to build a RACE engine. Again what you are wanting will not work on even a mild by definition 3.8. Not to get into specifics it would cost more for your custom billet crank you will need to utilize the potential of an all out race type head. Keep in mind a RACE type head will not perform well and perhaps worse then a factory ported casting in 5000rpm and under lower boost applications. Bigger volume runners and valve sizes in combination can slow down velocity and make for poor low lift power and flow. Everything is relative here and although it would be nice to cater to 10 people who may want all out race componants that si far from the majority, far from what will sell and far from what will make money for as manufacturer.

Buissness 101 caters to the majority..Not the minority. And this is about what the majority would want. Not Dave . Not I. Not You. But we are hear to state our wants and desires. Me, I want to see it happen and all I can add is to what teh majority is an dwhat I would buy.

I would not buy a head that gives up a great deal of low end lift performance to a to gain a great deal at .700 lift . I will however give up a little low lift flow for a head that is much better in the mid all that way up to 650 lift range out of the box. As Casey has mentioned extra material will be there for porting which can take you beyond that,. Yes it will cost more to port but this isnt a cheap mans sport. And when you are talking about the performance potential beyond lets say what Matt is making..Its definitely not cheaper. Remeber Matt is making more then 600 at the rear wheels.

We all just need to be very realistic. Making a head that can cater to medium to wild is a good goal to have. Not mild to almost wild...Or just wild only. I think we all agree that whatever it is it has to out perform a Steig exhaust port with the proper intake ratio to coincide. If it does that out the box with room for more.... GREAT...And being we can raise the exhaust port...Run a larger seat/valve combo on both intake and exhaust....There is NO REASON we cant get there

But then again what do I know

XR7 Dave
12-07-2006, 10:59 AM
Then they should be willing to make heads as well...And at the price TA sells heads for it would be below the price of these(think buick 3.8). Also to take into consideration.


I wish you would stop saying that other cylinder heads cost less. You don't know what the price would even be with these. We are well aware of what market prices are for V6 heads and so is the manufacturer. The $2500 price tag listed in the first post was a made up number intended to weed the cheapies from those who would seriously consider an upgrade such as this.

Keep in mind that the "complete" price from TA performance includes only marginal quality parts. If you want better stuff the price jumps up real quick.

Matt, how many orders are necessary for TA performance to R&D a block for us and what would that cost?

tim
12-07-2006, 11:32 AM
$2500 is really not bad for a new set of heads. Its $1000 to have your old design heads redone. Granted there are people out there doing good things with stock heads but all the limitations have been listed. Heads and manifold wow. If you look at the top cars I really think we are getting close to the limit of what can be done reasonably with stock heads. Blocks? that would be great. Something that could be safely bored to 60 thousands or a tall style for a longer stroke? I have heard from a lot of people cubic inches does not reall gain us that much. But a 260 cu. in. block with good new heads makes me droole.:eek:

XxSlowpokexX
12-07-2006, 11:50 AM
Dave,

I dont keep saying.... . But what ever happened to fair and open market. Competition...As you noted with BHJ balancers...There initial cost was high due to no competition and initially not thinking they would sell many units. Hundreds of units later...Maybe thousands? This sounda familiar dont it?

As if it would be a bad thing for the community if TA said, hey we'll make a head. Do I care who makes it or who it goes through? Not one bit..I dont care if you or Mickey Mouse is selling it, nor should the community. So long as it is produced for a reasonable price..be it 1,500 or 2,500 and reasonable is subjective.

This is the same game here. If it isnt something you like to hear sorry. But seriously who are we out for..US as a community or an individual. If someone comes to the plate and offers a quality product at a reduced cost....I know where I would go. Or is the mere mention of competition upsetting to the manufacturer. If thats the case I dont know what to say. It's not as though anyone would be copying his R&D work as is often done in this community

Me I would pay 2,500 no questiosn asked for a product that I am looking for. Others maynot. I'd also rather spend 2,000 or 1,800 on the same product.

Bottom line I wasnt making a big deal out fo pricing because I;m willing tio pay...But to get upset that someone may be able to offer something at a reduced rate...And to get upset about that....Not good. I also have no intentions on using an aluminum block so I dont care:O)

But then again..What do I know

white95v6
12-07-2006, 01:08 PM
i think Gary said 2-3 blocks. i think he said somewhere around the 3500 range.

it would be good to 4'' bore. hehe custom crank with 4'' stroke and we have a 302CI v6.:eek:

XR7 Dave
12-07-2006, 02:38 PM
Dave,

I dont keep saying.... . But what ever happened to fair and open market. Competition...As you noted with BHJ balancers...There initial cost was high due to no competition and initially not thinking they would sell many units. Hundreds of units later...Maybe thousands? This sounda familiar dont it?

As if it would be a bad thing for the community if TA said, hey we'll make a head. Do I care who makes it or who it goes through? Not one bit..I dont care if you or Mickey Mouse is selling it, nor should the community. So long as it is produced for a reasonable price..be it 1,500 or 2,500 and reasonable is subjective.

This is the same game here. If it isnt something you like to hear sorry. But seriously who are we out for..US as a community or an individual. If someone comes to the plate and offers a quality product at a reduced cost....I know where I would go. Or is the mere mention of competition upsetting to the manufacturer. If thats the case I dont know what to say. It's not as though anyone would be copying his R&D work as is often done in this community

Me I would pay 2,500 no questiosn asked for a product that I am looking for. Others maynot. I'd also rather spend 2,000 or 1,800 on the same product.

Bottom line I wasnt making a big deal out fo pricing because I;m willing tio pay...But to get upset that someone may be able to offer something at a reduced rate...And to get upset about that....Not good. I also have no intentions on using an aluminum block so I dont care:O)

But then again..What do I know

You do keep saying as you've brought it up at least 2x now.

I'm not upset in the sense of being ready to cry, it's no different than when I say something that entices you to reply back with rather uncomplimentary statements about something I've said or done. You say you aren't upset but really its' the same thing. Call it what you want.

My statement is that we DO NOT have pricing. We never did. We have REALISTIC estimates based on the market and anticipated demand. Substitute TA's pricing in there if you want.

I am aware of the basic process that started some of these other cylinder head productions that you are shopping. It wasn't 2-3 cylinder heads that got the ball rolling. It was orders in excess of 100 units to start with and anticipation of several hundred more down the line.

We are anticipating less than 200 units. Period. Show me how we can increase those #'s and I'm all ears but I think we covered that already. Yes, the BHJ thing irritates me. As long as I have something to do with this it will not turn out that way.

XR7 Dave
12-07-2006, 02:40 PM
i think Gary said 2-3 blocks. i think he said somewhere around the 3500 range.

it would be good to 4'' bore. hehe custom crank with 4'' stroke and we have a 302CI v6.:eek:

This is interesting, but now we are in SVO territory. I'm sure you've looked at those motors, what would make this more attractive?

XxSlowpokexX
12-07-2006, 03:15 PM
2 times in 13 pages of posts is not allot!

The plus to having T/A(or anyone) make an aluminum block would be aluminum=lightweight and that it would be available (unlike the 4.5 engine)..Also it can be made to use anything from a stock SC crank to a custom billet stroker...Wet sump or dry sump. Revised lifter oiling, coolant passeges.. 4 bolt mains and so on and so forth

But mostly it would be that it was available. Now I;m not to familiar with teh 3.8 engines....But the SC has something different going on crank bearing wise that makes SC and standard 3.8 cranks non interchangable correct?

It's something I dont ever see myself getting into but I'm sure there are a few that would...Like Pablo...hehe

David Neibert
12-07-2006, 03:51 PM
2 times in 13 pages of posts is not allot!

The plus to having T/A(or anyone) make an aluminum block would be aluminum=lightweight and that it would be available (unlike the 4.5 engine)..Also it can be made to use anything from a stock SC crank to a custom billet stroker...Wet sump or dry sump. Revised lifter oiling, coolant passeges.. 4 bolt mains and so on and so forth

But mostly it would be that it was available. Now I;m not to familiar with teh 3.8 engines....But the SC has something different going on crank bearing wise that makes SC and standard 3.8 cranks non interchangable correct?

It's something I dont ever see myself getting into but I'm sure there are a few that would...Like Pablo...hehe

Damon,

If were are talking new blocks, then why even bother sticking with the v6, when you could build a more capable 5.0 based motor with parts that are already on the market ?

Just so we can say it's a v6 ?...no thanks.

I think we need to concentrate on a good set of heads and intake manifold that will work with the block we already have and will accept stronger valvetrain components.

I'm also thinking your previous concerns about the heads flowing too much and hurting sub 5000 rpm performance are only valid for a naturally aspirated motor. Most of that goes out the window with forced induction. Especially on a positive displacement supercharged motor.

David

PS: The crank issue (SC vs. NA) is just a matter of using a differnt set of main bearings.

Ira R.
12-07-2006, 04:53 PM
`
...if you build it they will come......

XxSlowpokexX
12-07-2006, 05:10 PM
David N,

Like I said I never forsee myself using an aftermarket block or crank for that matter. Matt brought up the T/A block. Dave D said what would be the advantages over a 4.5. I am all about head only developement using our block

About the heads flow not affecting performance I disagree. But if you are going to ask me to prove that I cant. I have never experienced going to big head wise on anything I have ever owned. Although an interesting experiemsnt would be stock heads, steig heads and mildly ported heads all on a stock motor to see what the outcome would be. I have witnessed a larger better flowing head losing performance over its smaller brother with centrifigals..But never with a positive displacement blower..Not becaus eit wouldnt happen..Just because I have never witnessed ant testing of that sort

Pablo94SC
12-07-2006, 05:10 PM
Damon,

If were are talking new blocks, then why even bother sticking with the v6, when you could build a more capable 5.0 based motor with parts that are already on the market ?

Just so we can say it's a v6 ?...no thanks.

I think we need to concentrate on a good set of heads and intake manifold that will work with the block we already have and will accept stronger valvetrain components.

I'm also thinking your previous concerns about the heads flowing too much and hurting sub 5000 rpm performance are only valid for a naturally aspirated motor. Most of that goes out the window with forced induction. Especially on a positive displacement supercharged motor.

David

PS: The crank issue (SC vs. NA) is just a matter of using a differnt set of main bearings.

I agree with what David said.

Thunder427
12-07-2006, 05:18 PM
i dont see why this discussion is still so 2 sided.


the more demand, the cheaper the product. we need this product. (Edit by Admin)

Just vote. not that it will change the situation. but just vote.


blocks now ? lets see if we can get the damn heads first.


but for all the rest of you content with being beat by stock Cobalt SS's. shutup.

XxSlowpokexX
12-07-2006, 05:22 PM
but for all the rest of you content with being beat by stock Cobalt SS's. shutup.

Thank God that hasnt happened yet..But heads alone wont get you thier either! I mean Matt has stock heads at 600rwhp +

I voted for heads alongg time ago!

XR7 Dave
12-07-2006, 06:11 PM
Thank God that hasnt happened yet..But heads alone wont get you thier either! I mean Matt has stock heads at 600rwhp +

I voted for heads alongg time ago!

True, but I'd be real curious to see what Matt's heads look like. I'm guessing that to flow those numbers they did some serious chit to them which, I can only guess how much it cost. Normal porting will take an SC intake port to 230-240cfm. 290+ cfm is way out there and well beyond the capabilities of not only a most shops but even 95% of the very good shops.

Now if that place were willing to do mass numbers of SC heads then we might have something to talk about but somehow I doubt it....

XxSlowpokexX
12-07-2006, 07:01 PM
Ragardless Dave...We need a goos head casting..We dont have that..And we all agre with that!

bowez
12-07-2006, 09:58 PM
The best way to get support is to get a someone to run these heads and get some publicity, and convince the SPI mustang guys which is better.

Mike8675309
12-07-2006, 10:18 PM
Whatever you do, just make sure the actual issues with our heads are addressed in some way.

I imagine the keys are:
Off the shelf address a good number of stock head isssues.
Able to be massaged by someone with skills beyond what can be done with stock heads.

Thus better potential all the way around. That's what's needed to sell them, more potential, less issues.

Build that and I'm a buyer.

Pablo94SC
12-08-2006, 01:53 AM
Here's my list, just for giggles -

1. increased deck thickness!!
2. Out of box performance comparable to Steg heads
3. Stock port locations
4. Better valvetrain hardware
5. Better spark plug access (one can dream, right?) LOL
6. Sold in various performance stages (pre-ported for your pleasure)

And Dave, I still want to know what you're asking from us. (Partial) Down payment? Partnerships? PM me if you'd like.

XR7 Dave
12-08-2006, 09:54 AM
And Dave, I still want to know what you're asking from us. (Partial) Down payment? Partnerships? PM me if you'd like.

All I have asked up to this point is for people to take a serious look at what kind of performance they really want from their SC's and realize that now is the time to make a pivotal decision on that direction.

Pablo94SC
12-08-2006, 06:19 PM
All I have asked up to this point is for people to take a serious look at what kind of performance they really want from their SC's and realize that now is the time to make a pivotal decision on that direction.

I want the car capable of mid 10s or better, but for everyday use, low 12s without a lot of boost and with a broad powerband (6500-7000rpm red line) would be great. I don't think that's too much to ask. :D

XxSlowpokexX
12-08-2006, 06:53 PM
I want to see a head that can sell hundreds or maybe even thousands of sets. Be everything I mentioned earlier "basically what Pablo wrote in his list"

In ten years I dont want to have to be looking for that one virgin head casting to match up to the one I destroyed.(crap in ten years I may be wearing diapers)

The funny thing is our heads in ported all out form really dont flow all that bad but they are junk and not a stout peice.

What i would like to see is something just like this
http://www.airflowresearch.com/225sbf_rh.php

We havnt mentioned it but we could easily make the pads with enough material to accept either a stud mounted or bolt down rocker. You could also have various spring setups available

Also and I didnt even think of it....If we could have some kind of a rev kit that can be retrofitted for those running high lift cams..I saw that here as well

http://www.airflowresearch.com/hydra_rev.php

Just some ides

Super XR7
12-08-2006, 08:42 PM
I'm with Pablo and Damon! I want it all - performance and reliabilty.

Mike

Pablo94SC
12-08-2006, 09:16 PM
I'm with Pablo and Damon! I want it all - performance and reliabilty.

Mike

Depending on the time frame it takes for these to come to market, I may be installing my new engine with these new heads. I'd be more than happy to be a guinea pig testing these heads out. If anyone could break em, it'd be me. LOL

white95v6
12-08-2006, 11:24 PM
yea i am with Pablo. i can show those SPI mustang/f-150 guys what a Real cylinder head can do. ;)

XxSlowpokexX
12-08-2006, 11:35 PM
Pablo letting engines sit with water in the clinders for over a year isnt our idea of breaking an engine beyond repair hehehe

Pablo94SC
12-08-2006, 11:41 PM
Pablo letting engines sit with water in the clinders for over a year isnt our idea of breaking an engine beyond repair hehehe

True, but by the time these come to market, I'll probably have my new short block built. :D

427Cammer
12-08-2006, 11:42 PM
I want the car capable of mid 10s or better, but for everyday use, low 12s without a lot of boost and with a broad powerband (6500-7000rpm red line) would be great. I don't think that's too much to ask. :D

This sums up my sentiments -- with a new, freer breathing induction system that makes more power with less wear and tear on the motor, I can look forward to the possibility of a fully loaded daily driver that can reliably run back-to-back high 12-second quarters, without having the motor stressed to the edge, and can be counted upon to knock out a 1000 mile road trip without any mechanical problems.

Of course, I realize that there are always drive-line and chassis reliability issues to contend with, when considering the thought of hurtling a 4000+ pound lead sled through a 12-second quarter -- the balloon theory of fixing problems is ever valid -- fixing one problem is like pressing inward upon a bulge in the balloon -- the bulge appears elsewhere on the balloon in the form of *another problem* to resolve.

Bottom line -- a 12-second heavy door slammer from a relatively unstressed motor, without NOS, whenever and wherever the need-for-speed presents itself -- this should be one of the design parameters/considerations of the new heads/manifold combo, IMHO -- for those that wish to pursue sub-12/11 second time-slips, the new heads/manifold can be hogged out with impunity -- mild to wild in its ability to serve different needs and wants.

Somebody mentioned previously the idea of offering Stage 1, Stage 2, Stage 3 versions of the new heads/manifold, matched with appropriate cams and fuel/air metering parts and pieces -- very good idea.

Cammer

Deep6
12-14-2006, 05:24 PM
After finally reading through all of these posts and seeing the great ideas, I just want to say that I'm all for it, no matter what the final product looks like, it's bound to make a serious improvement in HP.

After all for "bang for the buck" the top three ways to make more HP are:

1. Nitrous
2. Supercharger/Turbocharger
3. Cylinder Head(s)

We've already got the supercharger and some of us are even using N20 with that as well. The cylinder heads are the next logical step in making big HP reliably.

I was wondering, that since nothing has been actually built, if there is the possibility of changing the animal a little bit.

I saw a performance cylinder head a few years back from a company called "Dominion" that marketed cylinder heads for the LT-1. These cylinder heads had all of the right design features to make them flow more air. But what separated them from all of the other aftermarket cylinder heads was that they used a multi-valve arrangement.

That's right, a 4-valve per cylinder arrangement that was meant to bolt up to a OHV engine. The heads were dyno proven to make an additional 90hp (with proper tuning) over stock heads on an LT-1 without any other mods. :eek:

So naturally my question is, if we are working with a "clean sheet" head casting, is it possible to incorporate a 4-valve set up?
Will there be issues of having to relocate spark plugs? Pistons hitting valves?
etc. etc. etc. :confused:

Seems to me though that the OHV engine is a rare bird these days as far as new vehicle engine designs are concerned. Most of the high horse V-6's today are making their power using multi-valve arrangements, variable valve timing and even direct fuel injection. I can only think of a handful of OHV engines that are still on the market, and some of those are now using variable valve timing (GM 3.9L).

Now, before everyone gets angry with me and says "that won't work", I just want to say that I'm trying to think out side of our 2-valve box and "take the birds to the next level" as Dave has put it. :o

gldiii
12-14-2006, 08:55 PM
I'd say for from $8,000-$14,000 for the heads most people would not buy a set. (These are $$$ figures for heads that fit very common Ford and Chevy engines.)

http://www.araoengineering.com/

Very interesting idea, but probably not very realistic for us.

XxSlowpokexX
12-15-2006, 01:27 PM
4 valves=$$$$

Thomas
12-15-2006, 03:06 PM
I'd say for from $8,000-$14,000 for the heads most people would not buy a set. (These are $$$ figures for heads that fit very common Ford and Chevy engines.)

http://www.araoengineering.com/

Very interesting idea, but probably not very realistic for us.

no way they would cost that much.

seawalkersee
12-15-2006, 03:13 PM
The problem with those heads would be the EXACT same problem we are facing now. Where would the flow be supported? The intake we have WILL NOT SUPPORT THOSE FLOW NUMBERS. But that head setup with a GOOD intake would do wonders for our cars.

Chris

Thomas
12-15-2006, 03:16 PM
The problem with those heads would be the EXACT same problem we are facing now. Where would the flow be supported? The intake we have WILL NOT SUPPORT THOSE FLOW NUMBERS. But that head setup with a GOOD intake would do wonders for our cars.

Chris

Yeah, and if someone wants mediocre power, they can just purchase stock ported heads. It would be like making a forged shortblock just to run the same boost levels. pointless. If people are going to buy these heads, they're going to upgrade everything else too. It's not for the light modding enthusiast, it's for the obsessed speed freak.
-Thomas

seawalkersee
12-15-2006, 03:24 PM
But that is the point of this thread...to see what combo would be the best option for the price.

Chris

XxSlowpokexX
12-15-2006, 03:32 PM
Yeah, and if someone wants mediocre power, they can just purchase stock ported heads.

600 plus rwhp is mediocre?..Or have we lost sight of what 600rwhp is? Because stock heads can already support that

Whats most important is that these heads can support this power level and provide us a better platform for more strenght reliability and of course power

gldiii
12-15-2006, 03:36 PM
no way they would cost that much.

Thomas, those prices are direct from the site that already makes heads for a 4 valve conversion on common Ford and Chevy engines. You have two sets of special rocker arms to make it all work with existing push rod locations.

427Cammer
12-15-2006, 04:06 PM
600 plus rwhp is mediocre?..Or have we lost sight of what 600rwhp is? Because stock heads can already support that

Whats most important is that these heads can support this power level and provide us a better platform for more strenght reliability and of course power

Damon,

The KEY question SHOULD consider how to make 600 RWHP (or 400) as RELIABLY (from a motor perspective -- driveline is another consideration altogether) as possibly -- for instance, if I were to bolt on the these new heads with other induction upgrades to a stock short block, can I expect to obtain somewhere in the 350-400 RWHP, while running the blower pressures at stock settings and NO IC, AND not overstress the motor, head gaskets, etc.?

Uncorking the heads and intake would do WONDERS to helping the motor make much EASIER horse power numbers -- in other words, the motor does not have to be forced by high-blower pressures and other expensive add-ons to make decent power.

My brother has a 1989 Taurus SHO -- as you likely know, the Yamaha-designed heads and intake flow very nicely -- he has modded his motor some -- cams and chip, and it runs like a scalded dog -- easy mid-high-fourteens on street tires, despite the HUGE wheelspin issues and poor 60-foot times -- AND, he has nearly 375K miles on the ORIGINAL motor -- yep, 375K -- it is his daily driver -- all from a 3.0 Litre motor, which pulls to 7K on the tach before needing a shift -- no NOS, no blowers -- 100&#37; naturally aspirated.

THAT is what I am talking about -- breathing easy power, reliably.

Cammer

Deep6
12-15-2006, 05:32 PM
I just KNEW that I wasn't smoking crack when I saw those heads.

$8000-$14000 for a set of 32 valve V-8 heads? I seem to remember seeing the "Dominion" heads retailing in the range of $3500 for a basic model.

It's probably why "Dominion" is no longer in business...:rolleyes:

But at any rate, to truely think about it from the racer/street guy's point of view, if I had a set of heads that were bolt on, were way more reliable and gave me the most HP I could get....Price becomes less of a factor.

Honestly here for a second, if a set of 24-valve V-6 heads became available that bolted right up (with or without their own custom intake), were more reliable, gave me more modification options and bolted up something like 90+hp to a stock motor.....I'd be all over that like flies to dog poop. Even if that set-up costed around ~$5000..... it's well worth it.


Now before I hear about the guy who says "but yeah, you'll have a $20,000 engine in your car by the time your done with it". I'd respond, with someone may just want a set of kick a$$ heads like this, some intake and exhaust tweaks and tuning and it's DONE as far as a street car is concerned. Sounds to me like it's a minimal amount of wrench turning and a whole lot more reliablility to get me the streetable HP that I want, with the potential to go much further if I ever wanted to. :D

XxSlowpokexX
12-15-2006, 07:04 PM
Cammer I agree

However no matter what we do with the heads and intake..If weare using a stock m90 we wont get anywhere near 400rwhp. The m90 is definitely a restriction.edit(maybe close to or around)

With a 4.6 v8 with all the goodies cams ported heads etc....Youd be hard pressed to get 400rwhp with an m90..Or with a 302 if you want to go pushrod...Kind of like having a 1,200 hp motor and sticking a 450cfm carb on it..Youll never reach that potential.

So no matter how good these heads flow..In order to take advantage of them a new blower and moe boost is in order..I could be wrong but based on my personal experience I'm not..

XR7 Dave
12-15-2006, 07:54 PM
Arao Engineering = Dominion

Never were offered for $3500, and even at that price, that is nearly 2x the price of what we are looking at. Dreaming is a good excercise for the mind but personally if I'm going to dream it would be for a Coates cylinder head.

Let's be realistic and stick with something that has a chance of firstly being made and secondly ending up on a Supercoupe.

The OE cylinder head does not support 600rwhp. When you say that you give people visions of one day attaining 600rwhp which is simply not going to happen even with a turbo. Matt has pushed everything to the extreme and while it is cool that he says there's "nothing special" about his motor it remains that if 600rwhp were a simple matter of applying a certain recipe then there would be many others doing it.

The fact remains that the OE heads support between 400-550rwhp depending on how you attempt to achieve it. While it is possible to get more than that is would something akin to stating that just because Damon got 750rwhp from his stock block 5.0 that the motor really is capable of supporting that kind of power. It's not. He knows it, and to state otherwise is simply misleading.

The same thing applies to our cylinder heads.

Deep6
12-16-2006, 01:50 AM
I remember seeing an ad for these heads and for some reason "$3500" stuck in my head. It was an old ad, almost 10 years old and I could be confusing it with some other head out there.

I didn't know that ARAO Engineering was formerly known as Dominion. No wonder why I wasn't able to ever find those heads for all these years. :rolleyes:

And BTW, those Coates cylinder heads are just plain sick. :eek: They address some significant problems with internal combustion engines. I can only 'dream' what something like that could do on a SC engine.

But back to reality, I will be very happy with seeing the production of new cast cylinder heads for our engines (with or without specialized intake manifold). So please keep interest going in this project. I remember a few years ago, no one thought an Auto-Rotor could be used on our cars. And 425 crank HP was "about the max" someone could expect of these engines.

David Neibert
12-17-2006, 12:40 AM
Dave,

What is needed...... to make these new heads and intake manifold happen ?

David

CMac89
12-17-2006, 01:03 AM
Dave,

What is needed...... to make these new heads and intake manifold happen ?

David

Money and time is all it will take, to put it vaguely.

S_Mazza
12-17-2006, 01:12 AM
For some perspective, new (might even be reman) 4V heads for 4.6L v8s cost about $1,100 from Ford. With cams and valves, it can really add up.

Anyway, I think that a totally new head design is a great idea. But I think the market will be limited at a price over $2000. I know that's not gouging, because it's really expensive to develop this stuff. But it's just so high that most people will be left on the sidelines. Having V6 Mustang people on board will certainly help out, and maybe it is a workable business proposition. But I won't buy a pair.

By the way, regarding intake manifolds - I had an idea, and I have a CAD sketch of it, for an intake that keeps the same basic configuration, but is split into individual runners. The runners would continue up the return plenum to where it meets the IC pipe and merge there. And I think it could fit under the stock hood. I know that the runners will not be equal length, but it will be hard to get equal length runners under a stock hood.

Another idea is for the blower to sit in the stock location and have separate runners that pass under it, loop up on either side, and meet at a plenum on top. But I am not sure about fitment issues for that configuration.

white95v6
12-17-2006, 09:56 AM
The OE cylinder head does not support 600rwhp. When you say that you give people visions of one day attaining 600rwhp which is simply not going to happen even with a turbo. Matt has pushed everything to the extreme and while it is cool that he says there's "nothing special" about his motor it remains that if 600rwhp were a simple matter of applying a certain recipe then there would be many others doing it.



tell me whats special? if i was a Stick car i would be making about 720rwhp.

my heads have 1.84intake and 1.575 exhaust valves and they are ported.

i have a ported lower and a boxed upper.

8.2L compresson,I-beam rods,Stock crank,Junk Girdle, head studs and main studs.

on 19psi(pump gas) i made 530rwhp(stick) soo its not hard to make more then 500rwhp.

on 24psi race gas(C4) i made 550 rwhp. and then on pump gas same psi i made 540rwhp(do not suggest to anyone)

now on 30psi i make 638rwhp(race gas and C4).

now whats special about it?

David Neibert
12-17-2006, 10:04 AM
Money and time is all it will take, to put it vaguely.

Casey,

I gathered that much....I'm now asking for something more specific. Like how many sets do we need serious buyers for....what is it going to take to get the manufacturer moving on this project ect...ect...

I'm starting to plan for my next project and need to know if these heads are really going to happen within the next year, or if I should start looking for a 4.5 SVO instead.

David

XR7 Dave
12-17-2006, 10:25 AM
now whats special about it? Stay on topic. :p I said that your heads do not represent something that just anyone can get unless there is something I don't know. You've been so kind as to tell us the valve sizes that you used which means almost nothing but what I think people here would like to know within some sort of reasonable explanation is how you got 295cfm out of the intake port. No one else has done it so either you have some proprietary secret that you won't tell us or you are purposely holding something back.

I realize people don't just give up race secrets but you have to admit that when everyone else is struggling with 240cfm and you are opening claiming to be 55cfm above that, I know that there is more to it than just some "attention to detail." Until you are willing to share what you did or at least post up where others also get the work done and at what price it remains that your heads are unique and not attainable by anyone else.

That's what's so special. ;)

XxSlowpokexX
12-17-2006, 10:33 AM
Dave,

I am the first to state that 748rwhp stock 5.0 block will not live long under consistant racing conditions especially with a stock nodular iron crank.

Now if our factory 3.8 heads cant support 600 plus rwhp...WHo is to say our block will???..Maybe any head better then stock a waste.

The real reason noone is pushing more hp out of stock heads isnt because they cant..Or dont want to or because the motor wont hold up...

It's because how may people actually build 3.8 liter motors compared to lets say a 5.0..or lt1's..or.....And this high hp turbo application to our motors is a recent happening...Kind of like the A/R....When Jerry W was running an AR many many many many years ago people around here were like thats silly..What a waste... Our motors are limited....m90 is fine..I can go on..I never believed any of it..But I can pull up old posts stating the common thoughts...Many of which are not there from the original original forums


The proven fact is that the stock heads can support 600 rwhp just as well as the stock block and stock SC crank...Anything beyond that we dont know....Perhaps the stock heads will fail just as easily as the stock block or stock sc crank at higher then 600rwhp,

There is a point of failure..we just dont have enought competative high hp stock block 3.8's to see what that failure is. We hear about 5.0 failures because well there are millions of them out there getting the crud beat out of them

And whats so special about Matts motor is the Turbo...And a turbo isnt all that special now is it? EVen if his heads made a 100rwhp difference..I dont see any supercharged SC comming close without nitrous

seawalkersee
12-17-2006, 11:42 AM
Money and time is all it will take, to put it vaguely.

Must be more than that...We had both of those factors for our Balancer buy and that went bust...

Chris

Randy N Connie
12-17-2006, 12:23 PM
Stay on topic. :p I said that your heads do not represent something that just anyone can get unless there is something I don't know. You've been so kind as to tell us the valve sizes that you used which means almost nothing but what I think people here would like to know within some sort of reasonable explanation is how you got 295cfm out of the intake port. No one else has done it so either you have some proprietary secret that you won't tell us or you are purposely holding something back.

I realize people don't just give up race secrets but you have to admit that when everyone else is struggling with 240cfm and you are opening claiming to be 55cfm above that, I know that there is more to it than just some "attention to detail." Until you are willing to share what you did or at least post up where others also get the work done and at what price it remains that your heads are unique and not attainable by anyone else.

That's what's so special. ;)

Everyone is NOT struggling to get well above 240cfms . And I would
not call 295 cfms propietary ,I would call it, head porting with knowlege
& experience.

Being that I have ported a few heads in my time and have had
manufactured my own designed heads before. I find this thread
very amusing from the lack of knowlege or experience . :)

RANDY

XR7 Dave
12-17-2006, 01:15 PM
Dave,

I am the first to state that 748rwhp stock 5.0 block will not live long under consistant racing conditions especially with a stock nodular iron crank.

Now if our factory 3.8 heads cant support 600 plus rwhp...WHo is to say our block will???..Maybe any head better then stock a waste.

The real reason noone is pushing more hp out of stock heads isnt because they cant..Or dont want to or because the motor wont hold up...

It's because how may people actually build 3.8 liter motors compared to lets say a 5.0..or lt1's..or.....And this high hp turbo application to our motors is a recent happening...Kind of like the A/R....When Jerry W was running an AR many many many many years ago people around here were like thats silly..What a waste... Our motors are limited....m90 is fine..I can go on..I never believed any of it..But I can pull up old posts stating the common thoughts...Many of which are not there from the original original forums


The proven fact is that the stock heads can support 600 rwhp just as well as the stock block and stock SC crank...Anything beyond that we dont know....Perhaps the stock heads will fail just as easily as the stock block or stock sc crank at higher then 600rwhp,

There is a point of failure..we just dont have enought competative high hp stock block 3.8's to see what that failure is. We hear about 5.0 failures because well there are millions of them out there getting the crud beat out of them

And whats so special about Matts motor is the Turbo...And a turbo isnt all that special now is it? EVen if his heads made a 100rwhp difference..I dont see any supercharged SC comming close without nitrous

Dude, I'm talking about HEADS here. Not the turbo, not the rest of his motor, not his car.

Matt's heads, if they flow 295cfm, are NOT like anyone elses heads. Not even your super duper mondo special heads. What I'd like to know if this was achieved using standard porting techniques or something special that we don't know. I also want to know if others can buy a similar setup and for how much.

This information is actually quite important for us when considering a new head. It would not do anyone a service if we leave something on the table that we should have known.


Damon, the SC motor has been proven to handle up to 750 roots supercharged HP. Your statements are opinions, not facts.

XR7 Dave
12-17-2006, 01:17 PM
Everyone is NOT struggling to get well above 240cfms . And I would
not call 295 cfms propietary ,I would call it, head porting with knowlege
& experience.

Being that I have ported a few heads in my time and have had
manufactured my own designed heads before. I find this thread
very amusing from the lack of knowlege or experience . :)

RANDY

Thank you for that input. I feel much better now.

white95v6
12-17-2006, 02:46 PM
dave trust me when i say nothing special. normall porting.

and yes you can get a set of these heads from Delk Performance. we have not worked out the Price yet. but they will be ready for sale soon.



oh yea i am not turning up the boost just yet cause i have a Stock 4.2L crank(not forged) and a stock block. no one knows the Limit of those parts. and to tell the truth i don't wanna find out anytime soon.:eek:

XR7 Dave
12-17-2006, 07:22 PM
dave trust me when i say nothing special. normall porting.

and yes you can get a set of these heads from Delk Performance. we have not worked out the Price yet. but they will be ready for sale soon.



oh yea i am not turning up the boost just yet cause i have a Stock 4.2L crank(not forged) and a stock block. no one knows the Limit of those parts. and to tell the truth i don't wanna find out anytime soon.:eek:

Well, you learn something new every day. 260cfm from a non-welded exhaust port damn near defies physics. I don't see how we are going to sell new heads when you can provide those numbers from stock castings. Most people here aren't looking for more flow than that. Evidently we've been big time wasting our money with Steigemeier and Miller because their heads don't flow anywhere near that.

bowez
12-17-2006, 09:19 PM
Dave, real easy better design and potential. What is the main purpose of these heads Flow or durability? Either way a new casting will do more for the 3.8 community than a good machinist.

Pablo94SC
12-18-2006, 12:40 PM
I just wanted to interject that part of Matt's "secret" formula for power is the fact that he isn't using our ~~~ pancake lower intake. As for head flow, perhaps it's all in the flow bench setup... sorta like a dyno. *shrug*

I'm still down for new heads. Deck thickness is key in keeping the heads from moving around and/or warping. So stop getting your manties in a bunch Dave. You're starting to get that scared look in your typing, and that's gonna make people get squemish. We, as a community, need these heads. If not now, definitely in the next 5-10 years when there are no longer any stock SC heads left to be found.

Randy N Connie
12-18-2006, 01:53 PM
I'm still down for new heads. Deck thickness is key in keeping the heads from moving around and/or warping. We, as a community, need these heads. If not now, definitely in the next 5-10 years when there are no longer any stock SC heads left to be found.

ARP has headstuds that are to long for are sc motor.
So that part will not be a problem(RAISED DECK).
If you add thickness to the headstuds nut deck .
Adding aluminum in this area. Is one of the few ways
to make a thicker deck. And keep water jacket volume.

Next the exhaust ports header flange need to be raised.
So the header, when bolted on will clear the longer ARP
headstuds & nuts. And this raised exhaust will support
better flow & the use of stock headers.

To make the head stiffer ,aluminum can be added in the
valvetrain gallies floor area. And by making this area
raised & thicker. The water jacket volume can be kept
or add volume. To the waterjacket area above the combustion
chamber hat. The Volume can be inlargered For better cooling.
And the most important part give room for raised & thicker
intake/exhaust ports walls


And a longer than stock valve stems would need to be used.
because the valve spring seat needs to be raised. And mass
added around valve guide in the waterjacket area. This mod
would help in setting up the spring packs heights for higher lift
cam,& porting


On the intake side of the head. Ford made there casting as
light as possible. aluminum can be added into to this side
To stiffen the new heads.This would make the job of casting
the part easier. And give a complete flat deck to machine in
a couple passes on a mill.

I think I would make the head to fit stock intake and exhaust manifolds.
If you plan to sell to the masses.

Randy

XxSlowpokexX
12-18-2006, 02:29 PM
Damon, the SC motor has been proven to handle up to 750 roots supercharged HP. Your statements are opinions, not facts.

Ok Dave..WHat am I misisng here because you said before.....


The OE cylinder head does not support 600rwhp. When you say that you give people visions of one day attaining 600rwhp which is simply not going to happen even with a turbo. Matt has pushed everything to the extreme and while it is cool that he says there's "nothing special" about his motor it remains that if 600rwhp were a simple matter of applying a certain recipe then there would be many others doing it.

Because we do not have an aftermarket head offered to us now..I can only assume you meant OE head in both cases....So I'm a bit confused. Wait allot confused.

Did you hear of some new startling information the past few days we dont know about>>?? If so It's new to all of us and I surely shouldnt be mocked as saying it is MY OPINION...

Unless you are saying 750 flywheel HP which may or may not be what Matt has.

So what is it..The OE heads can support 600rwhp..or cant...Seems your a lil confused on the topic as well..

Regardless I think we all are looking foward to a BETTER HEAD..

So dont even try to think of this a knock on me or anyoen else wanting a new head..I think we need one period.

XR7 Dave
12-18-2006, 03:43 PM
Ok Dave..WHat am I misisng here


Because we do not have an aftermarket head offered to us now..I can only assume you meant OE head in both cases....So I'm a bit confused. Wait allot confused.

Did you hear of some new startling information the past few days we dont know about>>?? If so It's new to all of us and I surely shouldnt be mocked as saying it is MY OPINION...Not mocking, just reminding people that you are posting opinions, not facts.


Unless you are saying 750 flywheel HP which may or may not be what Matt has.

So what is it..The OE heads can support 600rwhp..or cant...Seems your a lil confused on the topic as well..

Regardless I think we all are looking foward to a BETTER HEAD..

So dont even try to think of this a knock on me or anyone else wanting a new head..I think we need one period.

What I meant by stating that the heads do not support that power level is that to achieve that power level requires operating outside a reasonable design window for the heads. Sorry I'm having trouble putting it in words people can understand. It's like those guys who used to drive around with 13" tires on their 68 Impalas. They drove around, the tires didn't pop - all the time. So someone could say that the tires supported the weight of the car. The fact that the tires were terribly overloaded and unable to be driven safely for reasonable distances at normal speeds is besides the point if you already subscribe to the idea that the tires were ok.

To flow enough air to "support" that power level requires extreme boost due to a rising pressure differential that exists between the manifold and the combustion chamber. When the port can no longer provide the air needed to keep up with the cylinder then it follows, in my opinion, that the port is no longer properly supporting the motor. It should not take 30psi to generate that power level from a 4.2L motor and the resulting conditions from the 30psi are not practical or useful for the other 99.9% of the V6 market. That is my opinion. I clearly stated that you CAN make 600rwhp with these heads but I also strongly feel that the heads do not SUPPORT that power level. I think the difference in language is important. If I put together a nitrous system that gets me 500rwhp from an internally stock motor, does that mean a stock motor can support 500rwhp?

I was told in no uncertain terms that a stock motor could not support 440rwhp by someone we both know who claims to be reputable and knowledgeable. Yet I did do it and the motor didn't fail. Does that mean the motor supports that power level? I don't believe it means anything other than I did it. Just like you did 748rwhp from your stock block V8. You know full well that the next time you take it to full boost it could easily come apart. At that point you would would be forced to say that your stock motor didn't support 748rhwp.

Until someone can show that 600+rwhp is attainable, reliable, and maintainable at a measured VE that matches the boost level, I still feel that the heads do not properly support it. This is my opinion. As a result I feel that with a better head the same power levels could be achieved with a more reasonable amount of boost and a more useable power band. I feel this is an important part of "supporting" HP. I feel that Matt has achieved his power levels in spite of his ported OE heads, not because of them.

I don't personally believe that anyone can get 295cfm from an OE casting. I've seen and personally tested enough professionally ported 3.8L heads to feel confident in that statement. I'm not saying this to knock what Matt is doing or has done but it is important that moving forward we have some reasonable expectations from a new cylinder head.

Any new heads we come up with will not flow 295cfm out of the box. I know we started this discussion with lofty ideals but that's just not reality. After having discussed the project in detail with the actual persons doing the R&D I have been brought around to a more realistic line of thinking. We will address this in a new thread. In the mean time I'm not sure there is much else left to discuss here.

Thanks everyone for your participation. We will pick up the discussion in a new thread where we will talk more specifics including cost, timeline, performance expectations, etc. I am asking that we keep that discussion on topic. Feel free to continue this thread if you feel there is something else that needs to be said here.

CarlisleLandOwn
01-18-2007, 05:35 AM
Elderbrock what?

Am I too soon? Did I let the cat out of the bag? Or can I get my cookie now?

XxSlowpokexX
01-18-2007, 10:30 AM
What cookies?..And if Edlebrock makes em we may be screwed! I like my edlebrock SBF heads but they arnt major power makers

Seriosuly though Dave...

I was just pulling out where you said it both does and doesnt support those numbers. I'm not going to argue anymore however because that was before my most recent revalation about being an internet nice guy.

As I said I'm all for a beter casting..It should just be able to perform better or equally as well as a majorly modified and ported stock casting...If it cant somethings wrong.

Reality is our heads really dont flow all that bad stock if you compare them to some other OHV ford offerings head wise. Sad actually. But I have faith that anyone or any manufacturer that does this type of work will be able to produce a head 100% better then what we currently have. Top CFM #'s are only part of the picture afterall anyway and the head cannot be judged on that alone..>We all know that

Toms-SC
01-21-2007, 10:28 PM
And if Edlebrock makes em we may be screwed!


The facts and evidence you have produced are indisputable.