I got home tonight & pulled out my peanut port heads & took a good look at them.

1. I noticed the port shape looked a lot like the [NO TOMATOES PLEASE] 225 Slant Six, only bigger. The 225 is known for its low torque & would be an killer if it had a bigger bore...

2. I recently ported a Slant Six head [DONT ASK!!] so the peanut should clean up nice along the same lines..Just follow the contours & smooth everything out....

All in all this does not look like a bad head for a WorkHorse motor w/big torque/low RPM/ high port velocity

DISCLAIMER: My opinion is subject to change depending on how I feel at any given moment..


--------------------
'76 K5 Blazer 4x4, 383, Comp XE274, ported GM heads, Edel RPM & 1407, Dave Ray Dist,TH350, NP203, 4" Lift, 33" tires

Post Extras:

You are correct, the peanut port heads are not bad for a "workhorse" motor where you may be towing and bottom end torque is an issue. These heads would work great for that purpose. The peanut port heads pretty much run out of breath around 5000RPMs. In a performance application I would stay away from these heads though.

IMO, I think a set of peanut port heads with a little work done to them would make a nice head for a "street" 396-402.

Do some bowl work, maybe larger valves (2.19 / 1.88) but I don't know if this would be needed. A good hydraulic cam (maybe even a small solid :cool: ) around 220-225 @ .050 and a lift of 525-550, 9.5 cr, an RPM intake with a 650-750 cfm carb and some small tube headers.

I would think this setup would be very streetable with real good low-mid range torque and make good power up to about 5500rpm. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Originally posted by 71454Chevelle:
IMO, I think a set of peanut port heads with a little work done to them would make a nice head for a "street" 396-402.

Do some bowl work, maybe larger valves (2.19 / 1.88) but I don't know if this would be needed. A good hydraulic cam (maybe even a small solid :cool: ) around 220-225 @ .050 and a lift of 525-550, 9.5 cr, an RPM intake with a 650-750 cfm carb and some small tube headers.

I would think this setup would be very streetable with real good low-mid range torque and make good power up to about 5500rpm. graemlins/thumbsup.gif This is a combo I've been daydreaming about for a year or two. Pick a mild gear ratio and maybe pull down some 12's or mid 13's with decent mileage, too. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Rod

got a fresh set (and intake) from the machine shop that I'd let go cheap if you're interested....
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/Purs/Heads-intake.jpg

bpursley@esc14.net

The peanut port heads are only like 200 or so cc's whereas the L-29 Vortec truck heads that took their place are like 235 cc's or so!! And the L-29's are true large, (although small), ovals, not P/P!!

John L. did a buildup using them on a 502 and compared to them to -781's and rect's and came up with this..

Port the P/P heads out to 224 cc's and add 2.25"/1.90" valves and enlarge the peanut intake face to a large oval size and create one heck of a torque head for a max. torque motor!!

Next, the large ovals he used were -781's at 234 cc's starting and he ported them to 264 and added the same valves.

The rect's were like 323 starting and not touched b/c he didn't use them!! Just compared port sizes, that's all!!

This is why I figure the best oval port "bang for the buck" is the Merlin cast-iron oval head that is 269 cc's and already has 2.19"/1.88" valves, hardened seats and big spring seats!!

As always, jmho..

pdq67

Originally posted by Purs:
got a fresh set (and intake) from the machine shop that I'd let go cheap if you're interested....
http://www.chevelles.com/showroom/Purs/Heads-intake.jpg

bpursley@esc14.net Cheap? Hey, if you lived closer I'd snag them, but in this case they'd have to be shipped and the cost of shipping wouldn't be worth it.

What intake is that? Torker II?

yep!

Originally posted by Purs:
yep! Dang man you almost sound proud of that tongue.gif