Team Chevelle banner
Cancel
Create thread New Garage Forums

Vortecpro 454 Peanut Port Engine Build And Drag Test

Jump to Latest
182K views 367 replies 85 participants last post by  427L88  
V
#1 ·
Several years ago I bought a 1968 Chevelle and rebuilt it from the ground up with the intentions of testing my engines. I never had much time to run this car, but always wanted to test my peanut port 467 in this car and now the time has come. I would like to share my build with pictures on this forum with the intent of showing what goes into finding a rebuildable core along with the machining operations and all the details, and finally the bottom line, a track test.

My goal is simple: to run a 6 second 1/8 mile elapsed time at a 2130 feet elevation track with my full weight 68 Chevelle with my 236 headed peanut port 467, which consists of 9.2 compression, 228 @ .050 hyd flattappet, dual plane intake, 850 Holley. I believe this will be very informative and give a lot of insight into how dyno data translates into track times. Please follow along, I've got my work cut out for me.
 
V
#11 ·
Hopefully everything will go as planned. The core is being collected right now, pictures will follow, along with the complete build up, track testing will be done in Oct.


Pat, never received your PM.
Gary, never poured them, but I do port them with a sonic checker.
 
V
#12 ·
The 467/517 IS the engine you will see from the core to the machine work to the assembly to the drag strip run at a known verified weight in my 1968 Chevelle. The people that own these engines know they are very mild street drivers, this is going to be very interesting, and a few engine builders are quite skeptical of this package delivering the goods, a 6 sec 1/8 mile pass, as for me, I'am not worried one bit.
 
G
#15 ·
The reason I asked about the difference between the peanut ports and 049 is that i was curious about the casting differences. I wanted to know how close you could get to a large oval port head before you ran out of metal.I allways wanted to know how well a later vortec l29 head would do when ported as well. Im very interested how it comes out
 
V
#16 ·
There not opened up much from stock, but I do work over the area above the short turn. I will post pictures. The problem from a racing stand point is these engines are RPM limited, not a problem in a street car, in fact the throttle response is incredible. Watch this video, the car is a peanut port setup, notice the RPM range.

https://youtu.be/kVB8Fca9w0k
 
#18 ·
Strictly an 1/8 mile car? Can you elaborate on a "6 sec pass"
6.00 that would translate to a 9.40-ish 1/4 mile pass?
or
6.99 that would translate to a 11.00 1/4 miles pass?
That is a big difference.
Very impressive either way for a peanut port motor with mild cam. I am just curious though.
 
V
#19 ·
My goal is to run 6.96 in 1/8 mile at a track which sits at 2130 feet elevation.
My car is setup for higher HP combinations right now and I do not want to change the car around for this one test although it could be optimized more with some changes. Harold Bettes's calculations show I need 477-485 observed crank shaft HP to get the job done, and I agree with those numbers, just remember the baro runs from 27.40 to 28.00 at this track.
 
V
#21 ·
" Odds are against you"


I've heard this from a few others as well. I have a cart full of converters, so this will be optimized, the gear is a different story, 4.56 to answer your question, and I don't really want to change them, this could be a problem.
 
B
#26 ·
Since there are so many PP heads out there, the idea that there can be an optimized combo for them is a great way to sell a new line of parts and services :)

Someday I'd like to see an optimized combo for std stern drives in boats. You can't spin those things to fast and they have mediocre exhaust flow through the leg and prop. I think this is another place where PP heads could be used with a combo that yields big TQ at 4,500 or so :D
 
B
#30 ·
So I wonder if there is a way to enhance swirl with these heads. That might allow a bit more timing...

The intriguing thing is Somender Grooves. Usually cut across the quench area and aimed at the spark plug. The theory is that in that last little bit of compression stroke, the gases in the quench are are ejected at high velocity toward the plug adding turbulence... Some guys point them towards the exhaust valves... But whatever direction they are pointed, I'm sure they add either swirl or turbulence.

In all cases I've read about, they are able to bump the timing a bit more w/o detonation :)

I realize this is all voodoo, but he does have a patent on this and some pretty extensive testing ...

Here's the link to his patent: http://somender-singh.com/patent/patentpage.html
 

Attachments

V
#33 ·
Flow test on the un ported 236 heads with a 2.190 intake valve installed. Its interesting to compare these flow numbers with other heads of the muscle car era.

Bad Port

.200 143
.300 205
.400 228
.500 238
.550 Done

Good Port

.200 144
.300 206
.400 238
.500 245
.550 Done

2.190 intake valve, no back cut, 4.310 bore, tested @ 28 inches.
 
N
#37 ·
Why do the peanut ports get such a bad wrap? Looks to me like those flow numbers are pretty close to what the stock '60s Oval ports flow @ < 0.500" lift. No factory "muscle car" BBC oval port cam lifted the valves more than 0.500".

Did they ever make a small chamber version of the peanut port? Seems like a great head for 396/402 combos if they had small enough chambers.
 
Team Chevelle
posts
5.3M
members
131K
Since
1998
A forum community dedicated to Chevrolet Chevelle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about restorations, builds, performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Bench Racing Performance Engine Chevelle Tech Body Shop