http://www.macswebs.com/richl79/65tudorwagon/headflow.jpg
http://www.macswebs.com/richl79/65tudorwagon/headunder.jpg
http://www.macswebs.com/richl79/65tudorwagon/headpockets.jpg

*049 castings
*stainless steel valves, 2.19/1.88
*VTO 10 degree chrome molly retainers
*VTO 10 degree superlocks
*VTO fluoropolymer seals
*Lunati dual springs, 130# seat, 360# at .600

Me? :D :D :D :D :D

Wow,big 'ole chambers :D
Looks good..someone spent a little time on those graemlins/thumbsup.gif

Pretty heads AND sholud do NICELY, imho!!

What did the -049 chambers cc at?

pdq67

Originally posted by mr 4 speed:
Wow,big 'ole chambers :D
Looks good..someone spent a little time on those graemlins/thumbsup.gif Well, he had them for almost a year so he had time to do the work. ;)

I really can't wait to get this thing put together and it really pains me to realize it's going to be years yet.

I did order the 4.10 gears on Friday though... graemlins/hurray.gif

I should have a rolling chassis by the end of December so the engine will have a home as soon as I can get it done.

Originally posted by pdq67:
Pretty heads AND sholud do NICELY, imho!!

What did the -049 chambers cc at?

pdq67 119cc when it was all said and done. I have minidome pistons with a 30cc dome which will net a 10:1 static compression and an 8.2 DCR.

I am confused on the flow numbers. Row #9 says it is the flow, but the max the intake flowed was 167.5 cfm?? I am sure I am not reading something right.
What is row #10 (temp difference)?
Why were they flowed at 10"Hg?
What size bore?
Pipe or no pipe on the exhaust?

Ports look nice! When do you plan on bolting them babies on the motor? smile.gif

Jim

Why no hardened exhaust seats?? Just curious.

Originally posted by gspan1830:
Why no hardened exhaust seats?? Just curious. Unnecessary. There is no need to risk cutting into the water jacket and then junking the heads or causing a future hydrolock situation if the valve guides are done right with the correct materials.

Jim,
I really don't understand the form much myself, I figured it might make more sense to someone else with more knowledge of the things. He said he typically uses 10" as his standard unit of measure since that provides the most useful numbers in his street applications. (He personally races Comp Eliminator and is usually in the running regionally and builds his own engines including the flowing the heads.) I really don't know the other testing parameters he used that you asked about. I can find out if you like.

In general he told me the heads are now capable of supporting much more HP than I plan to make. Given the cam I have and the induction and exhaust I plan to use he estimated 550 HP but I think that's rather optomistic. I'd be thrilled with 90% of that!

Dude, knock off that sharp edge on your intake, just below the seat.

I read 154 cfm on the intake at .500" lift and 8" water. To convert to something useful, mutiply that by 1.87 to get the figure at 28" (sqrt(28/8)). Or 288 cfm, not bad, will support roughly 576 hp.

Guys, test data is only 10" and was not corrected to 28" -- that's why the "low" flow numbers. I'd ask the shop that did the work to correct their data to 28" water so you have some real data to look at.

As for the "sharp edge" -- don't "knock that off". If you made that into a smooth radius you would hurt flow -- the edge helps get the air turning as it goes through the seat area. If there is a lip, yes cut it down, but don't grind a radius in the intake seat.

PS. a radius on the exhaust seat typically helps -- unlike the intake.

Originally posted by 70GS455:
Dude, knock off that sharp edge on your intake, just below the seat. It's not a sharp edge.

The cam I'm using had .587 intake lift and .600 exhaust lift.

Here's a look down from the intake side.

http://www.macswebs.com/richl79/65tudorwagon/headintake.jpg

They look good man, have fun with them. I just got my heads back from my guy, and they look good too. Now They will be ported and polished.

The form is a standard Superflow form that comes with many flow benchs. As far as I can tell this is what he has listed:

Line 3: Test Pressure, either 10" or 8". I suspect that he has a bench that is fairly small in comarison to the new Superflow models. I have a Superflow 110 bench, and it is rated at 185 CFM. However if I use a lower pressure I can often test flows up to 250+ CFM. I don't know if this is as accurate as testing at 28" but it is all that I have.

Line 6: Is is raw data reading from the inclined Manometer on the bench.

Line 7: Is the calculated CFM without correction.

Line 8: Appears to be a correction factor for leakage, just as it is labled. I am guessing on this one, but it is a common number across the range and it is subtracted from the Calculated Flow.

Line 9: Is the flow number corrected to 28" which is the industry standard.

So, Line 9 is the bottom line for you. I am new at this Flowbench stuff, so hopefully Mike, or someone else with more experince than me will chime in. There is allot of other variables that can be important as were mentioned before the bore diameter, exh. pipe or not, corrections for currecnt air conditions, etc. The key to the flowbench is to keep all things equal as possible between tests. It is best used as an A-B comparator.

I have started an Excel spreadsheet to input all of the Flowbench data in and get a final report out. I am done with the input side, now I just need to create an output page. If anyone is interested in checking it out drop me an e-mail.

And Rich, I have to say nothing looks cooler that a freshly prepared set of heads. And you have a very nice set there. graemlins/thumbsup.gif

When asking bore diameter, are you asking about the block bore? If so, that is 4.280. I don't believe he used an exhaust pipe while testing on the flow bench. I plan to run headers (probably Doug's) but I haven't decided on an exhaust system yet.

The bore diameter of the test fixture on the flowbench. I only have 2 fixtures, a 4.000" and a 4.250". So if I had to do a set of 400 Chevy heads, it wouldn't be a prefectly correct test, becuse I would have to flow the head on a 4.250" fixture even though the heads would be on a 4.125" bore engine.

As far as a a exh. pipe, it is common to use a short section of pipe mounted to the exh. port to simulate the pipe flow and turn. It usually is 8" long or so. Same goes for the intake side. Commonly clay is used to create a radius for the intake air to go around when it enters the port.

This is all important if you were to flow the heads again at some point. If you flowed them with different variables than the output numbers would be different.

Rich,

This is the first time I've that about valve material and installation affecting the need for hardened exhaust seats. Is this something your machinst came up with?

AFAIK, hard seats are needed if you're going to run unleaded gas. Is this a race gas only motor? Or is it basically a show car engine that won't see any significant running time? Otherwise, I'm having a hard time understanding what the theory is here?

Tom

I've never bothered with having hardened seats installed either.Just a good valve job and guide work as required.Never had a problem with any of my BBC's and Olds motors.

Originally posted by mr 4 speed:
I've never bothered with having hardened seats installed either.Just a good valve job and guide work as required.Never had a problem with any of my BBC's and Olds motors. Exactly. Hardened seat in a pre-1971 cast iron head can be of some use, but for head cast post-1970 the iron is different, harder to start with given the intent to use unleaded which burns hotter. The guy who did the work is a long-time serious racer, machinist and a full-time diesel mechanic. He knows his stuff and has proven his opinions time and time again on his own cars and engines he has built for others.

The thought goes like this: if you install GOOD guides and get them honed straight there is no need for hardened seats. The reason most non-hardened seats fail is worn guides allow the valve to contact the seat out of square which further damages the seat which accelerates the problem by lessening the seal of the valve, further heating the valve and the seat which again accelerates the deterioration of the seat.

Stainless steel valves are harder than standard valves which makes them much more unlikely to become soft enough to adhere to the seat material. Bronze alloy guides keep the valve in the correct position longer (they wear better) thus avoiding the situation described above.

I was a skeptic too but I know dozens of guys who have had heads built by this same person and they all have nothing but praise for his work and his opinion on the lack of need for hardened seats. His handiwork is all over this area and many of the engines and heads he's worked have had hard use on the street and on the track and none have ever had an issue with the valves or seats.

A good buddy of mine took heads identical to mine done by the same guy and put his very streetable '70 Monte Carlo in the low 12's. He recently pulled the heads to move to aluminum Edelbrocks and with roughly 10k miles and coutless strip runs the old iron boat anchor heads were as good as new.

My engine will run on the street on pump gas unleaded.

I don't know what bore diameter he used on the flow bench. I'm learning all kinds of stuff about flows today. I may have to visit with him again to fill in some of the blanks. But I sure am happy with how the heads turned out and they are still cheaper all told than any aftermarket heads I've seen.

I would guess he is using an SF110 or 120 as they are the only benches I know of that won't pull more test pressure.
You will be reasonably close to the "industry standard" of 28" or whatever test pressure you wish to correct to by using the formula:
(which 70GS455 posted above)
SQ Root (new pressure/ old pressure)* CFM

Or for your 8" to 28" 1.87*154= 288" @ 28" which is a pretty damn good 781 port.

You would probably see somewhat less if they were actually flowed at 28" as the air will usually tend to get more turbulent so I prefer to see the numbers at 28".
The two numbers in column 7 at .5, .6, & .7 are most likely the "good" & "bad" ports.
There is normally not much difference in low lift flow between the two ports.

Originally posted by Wolfplace:

Or for your 8" to 28" 1.87*154= 288" @ 28" which is a pretty damn good 781 port.
These heads are 049s. Do those numbers still sound good?

That's good info and explains how a valve can sink into the head. It also explains how critical valvetrain geometry is.

They sure do look great but surely you've got some serious money in all that port work...LOL

They sure do look great but surely you've got some serious money in all that port work...LOL My 781's flowed maybe 5 cfm more on the intakes at 0.600 lift and I only had a couple hundred bucks in them from the porting. All said and done I saved myself probably $250 over some assembled Merlins and I think I have better stuff (springs ect) in mine. You won't run 8's with some cleaned up ovals but they're still probably the best bang for the buck.

Define serious money. :D I think it was pretty reasonable.

All the machine work: boring for larger valves, porting & polishing, valve guides, valve job, assembly and flow benching cost $650 for the pair with another $25.00 or so in parts.

I already had the valves, springs, retainers, locks, seals and rotator replacements when I took him the heads. Those parts cost me $370 so I have a total of about $1045 in them and I feel I have some really high quality performance parts and high quality workmanship in them. He threw in screw in studs and guide plates for free and they had already been hot tanked and magnafluxed when I first got them.

Given the improved flow of the heads, I may have to rethink my carb choice now. The one I have may be too small at 780 cfm.

Originally posted by Rich-L79:
[QUOTE]These heads are 049s. Do those numbers still sound good? Yes they do! My 063's flow 268/215
My 215's flow 278/241

I think you did great. Thanks for sharing the info. I've got a pair of 781's i hope to get done. Hope i can get off as cheap as you did.
I was gonna go for the hardened seats but now i'm rethinking it.
Did you have the cam choosen for this motor before you had the heads done??

Originally posted by Rich-L79:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wolfplace:

Or for your 8" to 28" 1.87*154= 288" @ 28" which is a pretty damn good 781 port.
These heads are 049s. Do those numbers still sound good? </font>[/QUOTE]=
Pretty much the same head. ;)

Consider I just flowed a set of EDE 290 cc heads & they were like 315-320 with a 4.530 bore on the good port & 300 or so on the "bad" one.
I have all the numbers if you want them.
The Brodix RaceRite with the CNC chamber is about 340-350 at .600 but is a 270cc port

If you convert your 700 lift number, it comes out to 313 cfm, which is what my 781's flow. That will support lots of ponies. You did good on the price too. The guy charged me 3000 bucks for my heads, with valves springs guides yada yada. I have never been back, but he continues to steal from people. After 12 dyno pulls, there was over 800 dollars of damage, which I ponied up for at the competition. So I have damn near 4000 dollars in a set of 781 heads. That is why I discourage anyone from going to stock heads. Your machine shop guy will be going to Hawaii on you.

Originally posted by gspan1830:
I think you did great. Thanks for sharing the info. I've got a pair of 781's i hope to get done. Hope i can get off as cheap as you did.
I was gonna go for the hardened seats but now i'm rethinking it.
Did you have the cam choosen for this motor before you had the heads done?? Yes, actually, I had the cam before I even had a block! It's an Ultradyne/Lunati 276/284 solid flat tappet cam.