Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow heads - Page 3 - Chevelle Tech
Performance Our High Performance area

 31Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
post #31 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 18, 4:47 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Vince
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,573
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr 4 speed View Post
This week I bought a pair of the ZZ502 GMPP heads with 2.25/1.88 110 cc
Going to put them on my other 454,which MIGHT end up in my vette.
I will be using a little bit of compression (current 063 heads cc'd between 101-102) but the GMPP heads do flow a little bit more than the currents heads which have had a bit of work done to them.
Those heads worked phenomenally on my 454. Great score

*69 SS 502 EFI /224-228* HR/9.8:1/T56/3.90/ 4000lbs RW 11.5/124mph
*96 Stang 6.0 turbo 10.5/135mph (9.13 ET w/E85 and 16psi) **SOLD**
*2011 Mustang GT premium
*61" Scag Kohler 22hp 7mph
69-CHVL is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 18, 5:26 PM
Senior Tech Team
Joe
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,285
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr 4 speed View Post
This week I bought a pair of the ZZ502 GMPP heads with 2.25/1.88 110 cc
Going to put them on my other 454,which MIGHT end up in my vette.
I will be using a little bit of compression (current 063 heads cc'd between 101-102) but the GMPP heads do flow a little bit more than the currents heads which have had a bit of work done to them.
Nice. What year Vette did you pick up? Of all the cars I've had over the years, the one I'd love to have right now is the '71 LS5 Vette Coupe I had in the early 90's.
Thor454 likes this.

Status: Car-Less


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GRN69CHV is offline  
post #33 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 20th, 18, 6:36 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Under the hood of some musclecar
Posts: 28,191
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRN69CHV View Post
Nice. What year Vette did you pick up? Of all the cars I've had over the years, the one I'd love to have right now is the '71 LS5 Vette Coupe I had in the early 90's.
Joe,I picked up a 76 (I used to own a 69 L46 and 69 L36 years ago-both 4 speeds)

It runs pretty damn strong,fun to drive-I have it tuned pretty well-does nice burnouts and makes all the right noises
When I get bored with it the 454 will go in. Car has 3.08 gears so nice cruiser too.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	ccvette2.jpg
Views:	43
Size:	96.8 KB
ID:	546449  
Thor454 and agproelco like this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.




To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
mr 4 speed is offline  
 
post #34 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 21st, 18, 10:15 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Vince
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,573
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Let me ask you guys this...do flat tops pose an issue with piston to valve clearance for moderate lift/duration cams? Doesn’t seem to be an issue mentioned so I’ll assume it will be fine.

*69 SS 502 EFI /224-228* HR/9.8:1/T56/3.90/ 4000lbs RW 11.5/124mph
*96 Stang 6.0 turbo 10.5/135mph (9.13 ET w/E85 and 16psi) **SOLD**
*2011 Mustang GT premium
*61" Scag Kohler 22hp 7mph
69-CHVL is offline  
post #35 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 21st, 18, 11:29 AM
Lifetime Premium Member
Steve
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Franklinville N.J.
Posts: 1,809
Garage
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69-CHVL View Post
Let me ask you guys this...do flat tops pose an issue with piston to valve clearance for moderate lift/duration cams? Doesn’t seem to be an issue mentioned so I’ll assume it will be fine.
Depending on the cam yes. The only way to know is to measure. The valve radius clearence is important with flat tops. Since they sometimes have small reliefs.

64 Chevelle 496
64 F100 Street Rod with BBC /Chevy trapped in a ford body
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
StevenS is offline  
post #36 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 21st, 18, 11:55 AM
Tech Team
Dale
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Michigan
Posts: 389
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Vince, why not do a 502 instead of the 454? It would be king in that low rpm region.

.
.
.

66 Chevelle
1/8 mile
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


1/4 mile
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Building more of a race car than driver but driving it more than I race. "simple old school shake, rattle & roll".
Monk is offline  
post #37 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 21st, 18, 12:01 PM
Tech Team
Kerry
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Lloydminster, Alberta
Posts: 883
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

On a stock truck short block, which has the flat top dish 340204 Z17 pistons, I installed AFR 265 and .038" head gaskets. Used a Straub hyd roller, 237/241 @.050", 296/300, .620"/.569", 107 LSA, 103 ICL. No issue with PTV clearance. I do not remember the exact measurements, but there was much more than the required minimums.
pockets is offline  
post #38 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 21st, 18, 1:08 PM
Tech Team
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: North Central Washington
Posts: 325
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69-CHVL View Post
The AFR’s are like 2100+ and then another 250 to flat. Adds up fast doesn’t it.
Yes it does. Do you genuinely want to build this engine yourself or are you more interested in the end result? I ask because you start with $2,100 heads, have the seats machined concentric with the guides, add roller rockers, custom length pushrods, custom cam, lifters, timing set, gaskets, head bolts, Perf RPM intake, tall valve covers, etc., and you're in the $4,000-$4,500 range. In comparison, $5,400 plus shipping gets you a completely refurbished Vortecpro 467 520 HP 560 Ft-lbs dyno tested with a warranty. Drop it in and turn the key.
Roadknee is offline  
post #39 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 22nd, 18, 8:02 AM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Vince
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,573
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by StevenS View Post
Vince

You are going to piss people off with that 454 in a Mustang. Just Like I do with my F100 with 454.
Yeah...but hey, this is "hot rodding"...mixing matching/searching for used parts. I find that the journey of building a car is just as fun or maybe even more fun than driving it! Funny this is, LS-swapped Stangs are so common now that people don't even flinch!

So in the spirit of junkyard LS takes-outs, I'm trying a take-out 454 to see what happens. We'll call this the Ratstang.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 427L88 View Post
Then why you askin'? "I'll take the 100CC Eddy's please. And a "cheap take out" 502 cam"."

Get to racing that ugly fckr!
Sometimes we answer our own questions...the Eddy's seem like the right head for what I need.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monk View Post
Vince, why not do a 502 instead of the 454? It would be king in that low rpm region.
Too dam expensive! This is strictly budget. I'm personally not into dropping 8-10k for an engine anymore. Ever since the junkyard turbo deal with my turbo Mustang, I feel the smiles-per-mile are much better with a good-running used motor that never had hands in it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadknee View Post
Yes it does. Do you genuinely want to build this engine yourself or are you more interested in the end result? I ask because you start with $2,100 heads, have the seats machined concentric with the guides, add roller rockers, custom length pushrods, custom cam, lifters, timing set, gaskets, head bolts, Perf RPM intake, tall valve covers, etc., and you're in the $4,000-$4,500 range. In comparison, $5,400 plus shipping gets you a completely refurbished Vortecpro 467 520 HP 560 Ft-lbs dyno tested with a warranty. Drop it in and turn the key.
Not building an engine. At this point, that ship has sailed for me. Picking up a 88k mile 7.4 Vortec, complete for $750.00 today. Will use a 502 cam or similar, factory lifters (what a cost saving there), and the standard issue RPM intake and Holley carb. While I agree Mark's engines are the real deal, the budget isn't there.

That article that Chris posted, for me, is an eye-opener. 560HP with a TFS heads. Just imagine that same engine with AFR heads and a better cam.

*69 SS 502 EFI /224-228* HR/9.8:1/T56/3.90/ 4000lbs RW 11.5/124mph
*96 Stang 6.0 turbo 10.5/135mph (9.13 ET w/E85 and 16psi) **SOLD**
*2011 Mustang GT premium
*61" Scag Kohler 22hp 7mph
69-CHVL is offline  
post #40 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 18, 10:58 AM
Tech Team
Andy
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Lancaster PA
Posts: 175
Garage
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69-CHVL View Post
Yeah...but hey, this is "hot rodding"...mixing matching/searching for used parts.



Not building an engine. At this point, that ship has sailed for me. Picking up a 88k mile 7.4 Vortec, complete for $750.00 today. Will use a 502 cam or similar, factory lifters (what a cost saving there), and the standard issue RPM intake and Holley carb. While I agree Mark's engines are the real deal, the budget isn't there.

That article that Chris posted, for me, is an eye-opener. 560HP with a TFS heads. Just imagine that same engine with AFR heads and a better cam.


What year engine are you picking up? What generation BB is it?
Ialone is offline  
post #41 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 18, 12:54 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Vince
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,573
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ialone View Post
What year engine are you picking up? What generation BB is it?
A ‘99 Gen VI out of a Suburban. 88k miles. Did a compression test, 160lbs all around (probably has more but I was using a batter charger/starter to crank the engine). Roller cam loks perfect. I think all newer engines have better machining done and better fuel mgmnt which makes last a lot longer than before.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	605E5845-DC33-49DA-9AED-7088D63ABECA.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	33.2 KB
ID:	547145   Click image for larger version

Name:	CAB124C9-E9B9-46C5-B9AD-A2F84BD84D13.jpg
Views:	45
Size:	116.1 KB
ID:	547153  
mr 4 speed and Ialone like this.

*69 SS 502 EFI /224-228* HR/9.8:1/T56/3.90/ 4000lbs RW 11.5/124mph
*96 Stang 6.0 turbo 10.5/135mph (9.13 ET w/E85 and 16psi) **SOLD**
*2011 Mustang GT premium
*61" Scag Kohler 22hp 7mph
69-CHVL is offline  
post #42 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 18, 2:55 PM
Lifetime Premium Member
Rod
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Western MA
Posts: 3,752
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69-CHVL View Post
I agree, looking back the heads were too big.

When I purchased these heads the 265’s were not avail...just the 305’s. Despite the larger size it was thought that the AFR’s were superior to the Eddy’s all around and the car would pick up big time. It was disappointing that after spending close to $3000 the car slowed down. But, the heads came alive on the 502.

The Eddy’s will always have a warm spot in my heart for a 454.
I'm sure you can recall better than I do because you actually bought and used a pair. The way I remember it the AFR305's were all the rage on Team Chevelle at the time. The 265's were a long way off at that point. I don't remember who the members were who were using them but they were seeing great results with the AFR 305's, enough so, that it looked like they were the greatest thing since sliced bread for just about any big block Chevy save for the baby rats. Many of these strong runners were 454 engines, so, it was the "logical" choice. May not seem "logical" to some of the newer members.
Rmchevelle is offline  
post #43 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 18, 3:24 PM
Tech Team
Andy
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Lancaster PA
Posts: 175
Garage
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69-CHVL View Post
A ‘99 Gen VI out of a Suburban. 88k miles. Did a compression test, 160lbs all around (probably has more but I was using a batter charger/starter to crank the engine). Roller cam loks perfect. I think all newer engines have better machining done and better fuel mgmnt which makes last a lot longer than before.

Excuse my ignorance I know the cam and lifters are different for a Mk VI vs a MK IV (Hyd Roller) and it's a 1 pc rear main seal, what else is different? Are the heads different? Different head gaskets? what else is different
Ialone is offline  
post #44 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 18, 8:52 PM
Senior Tech Team
Joe
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,285
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by 69-CHVL View Post
A ‘99 Gen VI out of a Suburban. 88k miles. Did a compression test, 160lbs all around (probably has more but I was using a batter charger/starter to crank the engine). Roller cam loks perfect. I think all newer engines have better machining done and better fuel mgmnt which makes last a lot longer than before.

Let this sink in for a minute. He is going to shoe horn a BBC putting down about 500# torque into an engine bay designed for at most a small block Ford putting out maybe 1/2 of that.

Status: Car-Less


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
GRN69CHV is offline  
post #45 of 49 (permalink) Old Apr 23rd, 18, 9:03 PM Thread Starter
Senior Tech Team
Vince
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Thornton, Pa
Posts: 13,573
Re: Less compression/better flow heads vs higher comp/lesser flow head

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ialone View Post
Excuse my ignorance I know the cam and lifters are different for a Mk VI vs a MK IV (Hyd Roller) and it's a 1 pc rear main seal, what else is different? Are the heads different? Different head gaskets? what else is different
Can run any heads on these blocks with the correct gaskets. Not sure if you can run Gen VI heads on older blocks but I think you can with the right gasket.

Oil pan, timing cover, crank are different. But all BBC intake and exh manifolds, w/p's, distributors will bolt-up.

Other notables - this block has no provision for mech. fuel pump, z-bar ball stud not drilled. But, setup to run a roller cam, balancer has timing marks etched into it, valve-train not adjustable.
Ialone likes this.

*69 SS 502 EFI /224-228* HR/9.8:1/T56/3.90/ 4000lbs RW 11.5/124mph
*96 Stang 6.0 turbo 10.5/135mph (9.13 ET w/E85 and 16psi) **SOLD**
*2011 Mustang GT premium
*61" Scag Kohler 22hp 7mph
69-CHVL is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Chevelle Tech forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address. Note, you will be sent a confirmation request to this address.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Old Thread Warning
This Thread is more than 594 days old. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
If you still feel it is necessary to make a new reply, you can still do so though.

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome