fleming442

Seems silly to go through all this and NOT o-ring it.

CANADIANOLDS

The best I can get them for is $240.00 CAN a pair…with shipping , duty and taxes it’s $310.00 C

it’s not just one reuse either… 5 x 310 isn’t a couple a hundred bux. Ask any stock/super stocker how many time’s they’ve been torn down for inspection and why they love the Cometics…they come off clean and can be put right back on after cleaning.

I think you’re taking a chance not going O rings..dont you think one day you’ll want to Jack the boost up for a killer run? I couldn’t resist the temptation

Clark455

I have direct experience with the SCE ICS Titan head gaskets - they are indeed completely bulletproof. First, the built in o-rings bite down HARD, then the solid copper prevents them from being pushed out under extreme cylinder pressures. Quite frankly, machining for separate / individual o-rings doesn't bring anything more to the table than the installation of these head gaskets. They will easily handle what I can throw at them, even if I institute a "scramble button" hitting the engine with some nitrous and accidentally get into detonation.

SCE ICS Titan Copper Head Gaskets

With their built-in integral combustion and coolant seals, patented SCE ICS Titan copper self-sealing head gaskets require no additional sealants. That means that you get user-friendly installation, combined with reliable fluid sealing, plus the unbeatable strength of solid copper gaskets. The fluid seals are bonded to both sides of the gaskets and cleverly offset to allow the annealed copper of the gaskets to deform around them for a better seal and to prevent blowout. The built-in combustion seals, found only on the ICS Titan gaskets, take the place of the O-ringed blocks or heads, allowing for the use of power adders or extreme static compression ratios. The gasket body is split at the bore opening to allow for the insertion of a stainless wire O-ring, forming a primary seal, with upper and lower flanges forming a secondary combustion pressure seal. Recommended for naturally aspirated gas or methanol racing engines, these one-of-a-kind copper ICS Titan head gaskets are suitable for medium-to-heavy turbocharged, blown, or nitrous-injected engines as well. For ultimate sealing strength every time, introduce your engine to SCE ICS Titan copper head gaskets.

Go to the 1:30 minute mark in this video to see the tech behind the SCE Copper ICS Titan - these are truly bad azz - I put my full faith into these:


Even the Cometics could handle 12-15 PSI of boost, but I am going to turn the wick up as far as this engine and chassis can take it, so Titan ICS Pro Copper head gaskets are most definitely going to take care of business for me.

I keep forgetting in these conversations that I am an Atech dealer, which is the pro discount division of Summit Racing. The prices I see are WAY different than what you guys see.

Big Block Pauly...

66-3X2 442

I also have an Atech Motorsports Pro Shop account. I see discounts on various parts and then very small discounts on others. Have you ever dealt with Chuck in the Pro Shop?

Clark455

I have dealt with quite a few different people at Atech - not sure if I have dealt with Chuck before. They base a lot of their pricing on what you have specifically sold in the way of numbers / volumes, meaning what it may show you under your account may be different than what I'm seeing while logged into my account. Hydratech spends thousands of dollars a week with Atech, suspecting that influences pricing on our end providing us a potentially better discount. Some manufactures / brands only provide a certain level of discounting no matter what, while others provide deeper levels of discounting in volume purchases, which means that certain items will be priced WAY better for us on Atech as opposed to the Summit retail end, BUT sometimes when the discounts to Atech aren't providing a very wide margin, this translates into maybe only 10-15% off the Summit listed prices on certain items...

66-3X2 442

I'm no big spender there and I'm sure volume factors into pricing. I had a good friend who use to work there and he set my account up and he told me I was getting racer pricing.

cutlassefi

Paul,
How much boost did you say you were targeting? I didn’t see a final number in your posts.

Just be aware, the Torq Storm blowers get more inefficient the more you overdrive them. To be totally honest, I’d be surprised if you get much more than 12-14 on a 535 inch build. My buddy has a single unit on a 6.2 LS and was hard pressed to get 8psi out of it.
And again, if you’re going to use E85, I’ll bet you won’t need an intercooler or any type of meth injection. Just stick with the E85.

Clark455

That's EXACTLY why I chose to go with the twin supercharger package instead of the single. This keeps the superchargers in their optimum speed zones. With each charger feeding its own throttle body, that's only 267.5 cubes / 4.38 liters per supercharger. If anything, I may end up under driving them with a pulley swap out to keep them from building boost until 3000 RPM.

The boost target is going to be essentially whatever the chassis can realistically hold along with the whatever the engine will tolerate. The package I have has the same CFM output as the Steve Morris Engines built 565 cube 1800 horse beast in the video:


Soooo... no reason why my smaller 535 isn't going to be capable of these levels of boost as far as supercharger outputs X cubic inches being fed.

My guesstimate is that I will likely find the chassis hard pressed to hold more than 15 PSI of boost, but that remains to be seen, especially since it is being equipped with traction control capable of pulling back timing and fuel as programmed to any rate of wheel slippage percentage I program into it. That is going to make it peculiar, as it may run WAY harder on concrete than it may on asphalt, depending on road temperatures, tire temps, etc...

On E85, I expect it to get COLD - REAL COLD at the bases of the throttle bodies, possibly even frosting up some until the engine warms up. The particular NASCAR design based throttle bodies I am using have a number of laser drilled fuel output jets right below the throttle butterflies that are fed by high pressure injectors (not anything like the low pressure designs of years prior) - see images below. This is going to create a very cold dense fog of highly cooled atomized E85. One problem is that E85 isn't readily available everywhere, even in this area, so I have to set it up for flex fuel (with a sensor in the fuel line that sniffs out how much alcohol is in the fuel) and carefully tune it to handle E85 AND premium gasoline (and any variation of mixture in between). A lot of E85 in this area has been busted as being closer to E65 which makes no sense. I do intend to initially run without the methanol injection to see how it will behave, though suspect a hot day running with the A/C on and "only" gasoline in the fuel tank will need to spray (essentially windshield washer fluid) into the mouths of the superchargers (instead of between the superchargers and the engine). This will also further atomize the mixture of methanol being injected by the vanes inside of the superchargers at high speeds (without dragging them down), also helping to keep the impellers and the insides of the housings cool and clean (as air filters do not catch everything no matter how good they are).


See all of the laser drilled fuel output holes that exist right below the throttle butterflies?


Until the engine warms up, I expect some frosting to occur with the E85 being finely atomized, spraying out of these annular fuel discharge holes fed by high pressure MPFI type fuel injectors.

Summary? My combo is expected to be able to belt out up to 25 PSI of boost, but my initial target is 15 PSI +/- Ultimately, the scenario remains to be seen.

AS many times as I have told my car what to do, it is a smart *** and instead tells me what IT wants to do (I have come to the conclusion that it must indeed be a female) (lol!) (Doh!)

But again, I can boost it all I want, but it won't matter if I can't get the exhaust ports to breathe...


Paul...

Clark455

FROM POST #22
So that's 427 CID / 7 Liters building boost at just off idle! I say again that we never saw that one coming!

oldsmoboogie

What head unit did you get? The issue I have with the Torquestorm is if you change the pulley it voids the warranty. They have come out with head units capable of more boost but the standard unit is only good for a certain CFM. Most people are only getting 8-10 pounds of boost out of them. With a large cubic inch engine and good flowing heads you will not see a lot of boost. What are you using for a boost controller?

cutlassefi

You’ll seldom find true E85 anywhere except from race fuel suppliers. Most times it’ll average about 70-75% out of any given pump at anytime.

Clark455

I have the 1200+ horsepower package, with the 8 blade 76 mm billet units capable of punching out 1250 CFM each = 2500 CFM combined. My Holley throttle bodies are the 950 CFM Terminators - running two of them. That 950 CFM rating on the throttle bodies is in naturally aspirated form - more will flow through them under boost.

Olds 1200+ Horse Twin TorqStorm

I will likely initially run the BOV's mechanically, though I plan on using the Holley Dominator to control the boost (instead of always dinking around with the BOV's mechanically), currently looking at this package for WAY more sophisticated boost control:

Holley Dominator Boost Controller

There is no way to flow 2500 CFM through the heads on this build, so it's obviously going to build large amounts of boost which will have to be precisely regulated. Maybe the PDD Max Effort CNC machined billet heads could flow that. At 180 CFM per exhaust port currently X 8 cylinders = 1440 CFM. BUT, keep in mind that cramming it in under force will yield more throughput. An increase to 220 CFM per exhaust port X 8 cylinders = 1760 CFM cumulatively, which is 320 more CFM overall - considerable difference. Engines in their most basic element are air pumps, adding fuel turns that around to make for mechanical output. Volumetric efficiency is largely dictated by the cylinder head flow rates. Spoken simply, the power is largely in the heads. If the heads don't flow, you don't make the power you could / would / should per cubic inch.

I void the warranty on everything I touch in one shape / form / sort or way, seemingly even just holding it in my hands lol. I am used to running in the race world of no warranty expressed or implied. It's not funny when the head units costs what they do, but I am not worried about screwing up the 'chargers by changing the pulleys myself. The pulleys are currently the 3.100", so we shall see how it behaves, but expecting to possibly switch out to the 3.250" pulleys to possibly delay the boost a bit, but it's all going to depend upon the VE (volumetric efficiency) of the 535 cubes.

Having to ship the units back in to have them change the pulleys as per TorqStorm's statement of maintaining the warranty is understandable as there are a LOT of ham fisted knuckleheads out there. As the manufacturer of high end aftermarket automotive specialty precision hydraulic brake assist systems, trust me - I know. I'd much rather have some of our systems shipped back in for any changes / repairs / modifications, but damn, people can't even package them up correctly leading to inbound shipping damages that we have no control over causing all involved headaches. I DID save the boxes the 'chargers came in, as they are Instapacked in the conforming foam filled bags, so if I ever do have to ship them, I at least have good packaging to properly do it.

So again, stay tuned - got to get more out of the exhaust ports than 180 CFM, with a target of 220.

Just me rambling on again...

Clark455

Want to know why? It is likely that their camshafts are not optimized for boost, blowing a good amount of boost out of the tail pipes (doh!)

Naturally aspirated cams are tuned for drawing in the next incoming air charge by sucking it in, then the exhaust profiles are optimized for scavenging as much exhaust out as possible. A cam profile designed specifically for boost has a different strategy and will therefore build more boost in the same package = higher effective overall boost levels if their cams are swapped out to boost specific profiles.

Ooops - simply forgot to put this into the last post. Like walking around the corner and going "what was I going to go get?" then walking back around and going "oh yeah, that's what it was"

cutlassefi

That’s strictly an assumption on your part. Do you have their cam specs? Just sayin.
BUT, if you say you have a different blower head then any comparison at all would be apples to oranges anyway.

And just curious, have you ever answered a question with just a simple yes or a no?😉

Thanks.

Clark455

What's the assumption you are referring to - that blower cams are different than naturally aspirated cams? Or that most people aren't running blower / boost optimized cams?

If I feel there is a YES or NO scenario where qualifying a statement is not necessary, then of course I will answer as such. These are multidimensional conversations being read by a lot of different people, not just two / three people involved. I learned that 25 years ago when I first started in on internet forums. That being the case, I try to make sure that people of different backgrounds are understanding what is being discussed, and why I may answer in one direction or the other. Maybe you are more so referring to my lengthier posts? If you were to read them out loud, they are only 30-45 seconds long.

Curious - as to which point of assumption you may be referring to. (see? if you don't properly qualify your statements...)

Here I will qualify the boost cam statement:

Boost cam versus a standard cam

Do I suck? YES There, happy? LOL

Paul - the guy that writes too much for some...
​​​​​​​

cutlassefi

Paul, I think you missed my point.
Yes, blower and NA cams are patterned differently. But my point was you’re assuming the the reason those builds aren’t building the boost you believe they should, is because they have the wrong cam in them.
Unless they furnished cam specs I don’t see how you can make that assumption.
Just my take on it.

SY2455

While my comment may not seem relevant. I am trying to figure this comment out ( Underlined section ). When the GMC Syclone came out all the factory did was lower the compression, installed better main caps in the block. Everything else in the block was just a base 4.3 including the camshaft. To this engine they added the unique intake manifold, the throttle body from a Corvette along with the TDO6-17C turbo.

Back in the day I recall an article where the owner of a 71 W-30 added a 6-71 blower to his car by putting in the heavy TRW forge pistons and opening up the ring gap. Granted you can make more power from a dedicated cam. It doesn't mean that the stock stuff wouldn't work.

​​​​​​​Did I totally miss something?

Clark455

Yeah yeah, give me hell - I'm always up for a good discussion. The number one problem I have seen with guys running boosted applications is that they frequently have the thunderous cackle of a big fat cam. You can hear that they are running cams with lots of duration and overlap as would be expected in a hot naturally aspirated build. Having spoken with the masses at many of the car shows and events I used to frequent, most would tell you that they're running a (name your brand) street / strip cam. Not one to sit there and detract from anybody's builds, I would always just nod my head and keep a happy conversation going asking more about their builds. Most all knew that they needed to lower their static compression ratios, but even guys with big blowers sticking way out of their hoods would say that their boost gauges are only showing 7-8 pounds of boost. By contrast, the guys with smoother running engines without all of the lope and cackle where the ones that were typically hitting the 12-15 PSI mark. Some discussions would even swear that of all the cams they tried, the "one step over stock" cams produced the best boost for them.

One memorable case in point:
I used to do a considerable amount of work with the Buick Grand Nationals years ago. A guy came to me one day complaining that he couldn't figure out why he wasn't building the boost he used to, convinced that something was wrong with his turbo, wastegate, or the controller. I had him pull up, pop his hood, fire up the engine so that I could listen to it, and right away I heard that the exhaust was "cammy". After checking all of the basics, engine vacuum, fuel pressure, cam position sensor adjustment, scan tool readings, I duct taped a live vacuum / boost gauge to the windshield and off we went for a test drive. The car ran good overall, but it wouldn't build more than 6-7 PSI of boost and was hovering around only 7-8 inches of vacuum at idle. I pulled over and completely locked out the wastegate and got back on the road again finding it still would not build more than 7 PSI of boost. Once back at the shop, I had him explain everything he had done to the car and then we drilled down onto where the problem started. As it turns out, he recently had his engine "freshened up" by a shop across town and it hadn't "run right" since. I asked him what cam was installed, and he couldn't tell me. I asked him to get with the shop that did the work and see if they could provide him with the part number and specs of the cam. He came back a few days later and I looked at this Wolverine Blue Racer cam card and immediately saw the problem - 110 lobe separation and a straight pattern 280 advertised duration. That explained the low vacuum at idle and the cackle in the exhaust. It was a little hard to break it to him, but they put him on the wrong path with that cam. He said it revved out better, which he liked, but I countered that he was losing out on the low end, midrange and overall boost which he agreed. He was told that he needed to put a bigger turbo on it, and that's what was stuck in his head. I told him my opinion, which was that the cam was all wrong for his car. I told him we should stick a Kenny Duttweiler cam in it first before going any further. Well, turns out he went to a few shops in the area and got everything from soup to nuts thrown at him for what to do. He came back a few days later and agreed that everything "went wrong" after the engine shop freshened up his engine, seeing that I wanted to backtrack to where the problem first came to pass. The reasoning finally sank in - go back to where the problem started and straighten out what went wrong at that point. He gave me the ok to order in the cam, and it showed up a few weeks later. I installed the cam for him, all went well. My initial test drive put a BIG smile on my face because now this car had transformed into an animal from 2600 all the way up to 6 grand, building so much boost that I had to back it off A LOT - blew the hose right off the intercooler the first time I jumped on it. I was excited to call him and let him know, but he was scheduled to stop in the next day anyway to check on the progress. When he arrived, I downplayed my own excitement and just told him it's running much better, but knew what surprise what waiting for him. I calmly just handed him his keys and said go take it for a spin. I heard him pull out onto the street and laughed when I heard it come on boost and tires spinning madly with him pedaling it to catch it back up, as I knew he was NOT expecting what he was experiencing. He came back a few minutes later all amped up and just could not believe that only a cam swap changed his car so dramatically. He said he was expecting it to be better, but said the boost gauge shot right up higher than ever before and the car pulled so hard he just couldn't believe it. I had him stop back in a few days later so that I could change his oil and filter checking everything over, and he was telling me all about the last few days decimating most everything he could find to run, and that was evidenced by all the rubber all over his rear quarter panels and wheel wells. He thanked me with a $100 tip for saving him from going with the bigger turbo and injectors another shop across town almost had him talked into as their fix for the problem.

That is but only one of the many experiences I had back in the days of working with Grand Nationals, Typhoons, and Syclones, along with a few big Roots blower builds. Seems like the guys with the big Roots blowers sticking out of their hoods just had to have the thunderous cackle of a big cam, even if it cost them some power - they had to have the look and the sound, sort of a different crowd. Given a choice, I always found that going with a cam ground specifically for a boosted application always made a world of difference. Guys that put the wrong cams in their boosted applications were always talking about speeding up their blowers, putting bigger turbos on. The guys that chose their cams wisely were the ones that were really kicking butt out there. The 4.3 turbo packages in the Syclones and Typhoons always responded well to all of the usual mods, but put the wrong cam in it, and downhill it went...

Summary? I have worked with enough forced induction builds to see what works best. Yes, all of the other cams being used do run. Are they always the best choice? A boost specific cam will always build more boost and power than other cams will, as it has been optimized for the specific usage. Turbo cams are patterned different than supercharger cams. Blowing boost out of the cylinders with too much valve overlap always kills boost...

Ya just gotta have the right bumpstick for what you're doing!

Paul...

SY2455

Thank you Paul, I now understand the prior posting.

Bubba68CS

Why is the "blower cam" still a thing? Hasn't that been fully myth-busted by now? I've seen multiple examples of cam shootouts NA and boosted where the only difference is that the curves are shifted up boosted.

Here's one example:

Engine Masters also did one, and there's plenty more out there. In every case the result is the same - take the NA curve, push it up. Whatever shape the cam gave the engine NA, it'll give boosted. So a cam that makes more power NA, will make more power boosted.

Clark455

As I had mentioned in my prior post:

I still stand by that, in that other cams and combinations will always run. Optimized? no... The higher the levels of boost, the more bleed down would occur from heavy overlap / lots of duration. As shown in that video provided, there was more boost produced with a dedicated blower cam. Was it a lot? Not in this vid, but it was nonetheless there. The higher the boost would have been cranked up, the larger the disparity would have been. This can be argued back and forth...

To get back on point of this thread, 180 CFM in my exhaust ports is not sufficient for what I am building. Full circle onto post #61 already, naturally aspirated or boosted, you are still looking at the limitation of what kind of power 535 inches of real Olds power can make until I can get the cylinder head throughput (flow) up. As mentioned, the intakes and the chambers are on target for my build. Having the cylinders crammed full of fuel and air under 15 PSI or more of boost, I am talking about getting that out of the cylinders. As it stands, one cam designer has stated that we can optimize the cam profile on the exhaust side (split profile cam) to help crutch the lower flowing exhaust port. Everybody I have consulted with (myself included lol) states that 180 CFM out of a CNC'd port isn't making sense. The bowls look like they should do their duty, but the port shaping where the transition from bowl to port exists appears to possibly be where some gains may be had. CanadianOlds made a point about radiusing the outermost edges of the valves for a few CFM of low lift flow, so that's already been a mod placed on the "to do list". Reed Grant of Grant Racing has MASSIVE cylinder head knowledge and experience, especially also first hand Olds knowledge, so he wants to look at the heads as soon as I can make the trip across town to his shop. I am dropping off an out of the box set of the Olds Speedmaster heads along with the Speedmaster heads Mark Remmel known here as cutlassefi CNC ported for me (so that Reed can examine the out of the box heads versus the mods that Mark's heads have had). Since I will not have the short block done until January / February, I have enough time to either work the existing exhaust valves and ports OR get into a different set of cylinder heads that can flow the 220+ CFM I am looking for (on the exhaust side) to make the most of the twin centrifugal supercharger build which can be seen in this thread:

Click here to view the twin TorqStorm superchargers mocked up

Had this "only" have been a 455, the 180 CFM on the exhaust could have been dealt with using a cam patterned specifically around the weak port flow. BUT, jumping up 80 more cubes to 535 aggravates the problem as per that in and of itself absolutely requiring higher flow. As mentioned previously, the larger 4.350" cylinders will help flow by not shrouding the valves like the smaller 455 cylinders would (as the cylinder walls are "right there" at the sides of the valves in a 4.155" bore). Mark wasn't clear as to what bore the head flows were tested against. I am surmising they were tested against the 455 bore size. I am going to have Grant Racing flow Mark's cylinder heads against a 4.350 bore, possibly finding a higher number right there in and of itself (flow testing against a larger bore which moves the cylinder walls away from the sides of the valves). The good news is that this engine is only going to be wound to 6000, maybe 6250 RPM's, looking for it to shine between 3000 and 6000.

So, yes, still chasing the original problem, which is exhaust port flow that tested lower than expected at 180 CFM. I'm hoping the ports can be massaged into hitting the 220 number to maximize the potential of this build.

Paul...

Bubba68CS

Making more power on less boost is always a good thing. If you're really concerned about the boost number, run a smaller pulley on the "non-blower" cam and make even more power at the same boost level. Either way, the "blower cam" is clearly the wrong choice...unless you want to make less power.

Clark455

While I do appreciate all of the input, essentially anything anybody may have to say, I do not want this cylinder head thread to turn into a camshaft debate thread. I am working with a unique build which requires a custom hydraulic roller camshaft be designed for it. First and foremost, it is going to be run on the different LS "C" firing order to spread the loads across the crank more evenly, quelling some of the usual harmonics produced by other firing orders. Next, it is going to be designed to provide a smooth idle, valve lifts held at the .600" mark for "set it and forget it" long term durability (like running the Hotrod Power Tour interstate), set up for 9:1 compression, rev ceiling of 6250, optimized for flex fuel usage, optimized for the 535 displacement and whatever we end up with as a final exhaust CFM. Even rod to stroke ratio is being taken into account.

This is oddly not a max effort / max power cam, instead splitting the difference between real world drivability and raw power - as close as you can get to a "have your cake and eat it too". I'd rather leave some horsepower on the table in exchange for civility, as my current G body chassis won't be able to handle everything this engine is going to be capable of producing anyway. The target here is a very multi purpose build - E85 to premium pump gas / street / strip / road race / sleeper / and also wife friendly cruise build, developing individual different tunes for each mode. Holley has actually developed a multi map selector key based system that I am considering - Holley part number: 558-407 Or not, just instead quickly uploading any of the different tunes saved with the laptop. A program that makes it fun for my wife and daughter to drive that won't kill them, and a valet type mode if I choose to take it in for a wheel alignment or anything like that where I need the car to be drivable, but make virtually no power, rev limiting at 2500 RPM no matter how much someone may attempt to tromp down on the fun pedal.

Summary? There is no off the shelf cam currently available that ticks all of the above boxes, so it is being left to the cam specialists to feed all of the exact data into their advanced software that will then produce a profile that will suit my particular build as per my criteria set forth. That being said, all of the usual cam debates don't really fit into this build, so there is no point in "going there" into the classic long-standing cam debates. Thank you for your input though!

Paul...

Bubba68CS

I mean, I wasn't the one who started talking about camshafts here. You were.

Getting the right cam for the intended use is obviously always the right approach.

fleming442

The longer this thread goes, the more I think that the "extra" supercharger money should have been spent on heads, and use a Procharger.

Clark455

Besides the initial $1300 purchase price of the heads, I put an additional stiff $3350 more into the head work with Mark (granted some of that was shipping costs outbound from Mark, but washes against my shipping costs initially inbound to him)

That being said, I DID spend the money on the heads - I have a total of $4650 into them as of this writing, with possibly more to go yet, sigh...

I am confident I can work with Grant Racing to get some further flow out of the exhaust ports. Being a supercharged application, I'm thinking instead of installing a larger intake valve into these heads, it may have worked out better to have instead installed a larger exhaust valve. I told Reed (Grant Racing) that I only have .059" between the valves right now, and he said off the cuff that we should be able to machine the OD of the valves enough to squeeze in a larger exhaust valve if needed, but he wants to examine the heads first to see what the seats are looking like as they will be exposed to a LOT of heat at WOT. It is his opinion that the valve itself may not be the issue, as he has flowed way more than 180 CFM on a 1.68" valve, so it remains to be seen as to what he may come up with. My fingers are crossed that he identifies what the exhaust ports may respond to and get them to flow out better without all too much involvement - "I am in it to win it". With what I already have into these heads, I'd really like to see it through but don't want to throw good money after bad. I have faith we can work them a bit more and hit the 220+ mark, as Reed is good, real good, but booked a solid year out (doh!) = I'm going to have to see if I can pull a favor with him to see if we can just identify exactly where the work may need to be done. I'll gladly do the work, just need to know what it will respond to. If he gets only one port whipped into shape, I can accurately mimic that on the other remaining ports saving a lot of his time involved, to where all he may have to do is a final cleanup of my work with them. I have a few ideas, but don't want to blindly jump into them without his input.

Paul...

fleming442

I meant something bigger to start with like Rocket Racing or Batten.

cutlassefi

Paul, my recommendation is to use the heads you got from me on your Stroker build.
Then do either my or Peyton’s CNC’d Edelbrocks on the blower build. That way you’re not paying for something twice. And we’re getting 220+ out of the exhaust at .650 or so.
Just a thought.

skyhigh

Omg almost 5 grand for the heads to me that would be like 6500 Canadian, I thought Marks cnc program was like 1800 with supplied heads? I really hope your going to get the performance your looking for at that price.

OLDSter Ralph

I believe Paul had the combustion chambers specially modified to unshroud the valves he wants to use and 85cc combustion chambers that added to the final cost also.

cutlassefi

^^^^^, program had to be redone, twice.

Clark455

Yes, Mark did charge me some hefty extra coin to open up the combustion chambers, contrary to what most people are doing in attempts to increase compression as I am needing to lower the compression to my target of 9:1 optimized for supercharged use. The enlargement of the combustion chambers wasn't so much as to increase their depth, instead increasing their perimeter, especially on the sides closest to the valves. Anything near the valves such as a combustion chamber wall, or in the case of a 455 with its smallish 4.125" cylinder bores, will impeded valve flow at the sides of the valves. With the widened combustion chambers running on the larger 4.350" bores, there will be an increase in flow.

HERE IS AN OUT OF THE BOX SPEEDMASTER OLDS COMBUSTION CHAMBER:


Out of the box Speedmaster Olds chamber with the 2.072" intake valve / 1.680" exhaust valve

HERE IS THE ENLARGED CHAMBER:


Enlarged / widened chamber with the 2.125" intake valve / 1.680" exhaust valve

If I understand correctly, this widening of the chambers added a $1000 +/- to the bill. What still has me flummoxed is the walls of the chamber have been moved away from the exhaust valves, the bowls and ports have been worked, yet still only flowing 180 CFM according to the data Mark provided. It won't be long before I see what Reed (Grant Racing) has to say after examining the exhaust ports. He said "bring them to me and I will tell you what's wrong", so fingers crossed that he points out what the deficiencies are in these ports and can mod one and flow it. Once it's determined as to what they will respond to on one port, I'll spank them apart and get busy on the rest of them as Reed is busy as busy gets, backlogged well beyond my target timeframes. I know my way around cylinder head porting very well, have all of the extended reach various carbide bits, and will let the aluminum fly. With a little bit of luck x experience, I will run them back over for Reed to review when I am done, and he will either say "that's it, let's flow them" or send me back to the drawing board with further instructions. I sure wish I had a flow bench!

Here are the specs on the heads again provided by Mark again:

Int.#1
Flow
.100 2 28.00 69.60 .0 65.7 Int #1
.150 3 28.00 50.80 .0 97.6 Int #1
.200 3 28.00 63.00 .0 121.0 Int #1
.250 3 28.00 79.80 .0 153.3 Int #1
.300 4 28.00 47.40 .0 179.9 Int #1
.350 4 28.00 55.70 .0 211.4 Int #1
.400 4 28.00 64.00 .0 242.9 Int #1
.450 4 28.00 71.60 .0 271.7 Int #1
.500 4 28.00 76.10 .0 288.8 Int #1
.550 4 28.00 78.80 .0 299.0 Int #1
.600 4 28.00 77.40 .0 293.7 Int #1 <-- my target lift
.650 4 28.00 78.90 .0 299.4 Int #1
.700 4 28.00 80.20 .0 304.4

Exh #1 Flow
.100 2 27.97 56.60 .0 63.0 Exh #1
.150 2 27.91 75.10 .0 83.7 Exh #1
.200 3 27.91 49.10 .0 106.0 Exh #1
.250 3 27.97 56.10 .0 121.0 Exh #1
.300 3 27.98 62.40 .0 134.6 Exh #1
.350 3 27.84 67.70 .0 146.4 Exh #1
.400 3 27.98 73.60 .0 158.7 Exh #1
.450 3 27.96 76.90 .0 165.9 Exh #1
.500 3 27.96 79.90 .0 172.4 Exh #1
.550 3 27.88 81.80 .0 176.7 Exh #1
.600 3 27.95 83.30 .0 179.8 Exh #1 <-- my target lift
.650 3 27.95 84.60 .0 182.6 Exh #1
.700 3 27.97 85.60 .0 184.7

Valves are SI Stainless SEV Series
Valve Sizes are Intake 2.125 / Exhaust 1.68
Spring Rates are 140# on the seat and 400# at .600” lift
Valve Seat Angles are 45* with a 30* top cut and 60* bottom cut
Combustion Chamber Volume stated as 85cc

I am considering installing some exhaust valves that can handle higher temperatures (definitely if we do end up upsizing them), as this car does hit the road course occasionally, with extended foot to the floor high RPM's in the straightaways where the SI SEV series valves may not be able to take the heat.
Click here to view the SI Valves web page
The Inconel Silverline Series 1 and Series 2 valves are designed for higher heat.

HERE IS WHAT THE KNOWLTONS THUNDERHEADS SPEEDMASTERS FLOW AT:

As posted by rjh45


If you have been watching any of the news, you have seen how much stubborn resolve Ukrainian people have. I am now considering these heads as my "white whale" and will pursue them as far as I need to get the exhaust ports working. I have a nicer digital TIG if needed, so I will rework the ports by adding and subtracting metal as needed to make them work. If Knowltons can do it, I know that I can achieve or exceed the 216 CFM they reported at .600" on rjh45's Speedmasters.

Paul...

Bernhard

Here is an affordable flow bench, some find they work well.
http://www.flowperformance.com/system.html

Battenrunner

By the way, sort of apples to oranges on exhaust ports, but the smaller 1.625 Ferrea exhaust valves that VORTECPRO installed as replacements for the bad 1.71 exhaust valves we had that flowed 216 ended up flowing 220cfm at .600 with the small Ferreas in our ported Batten heads. You may be able to get your flow number goal with your smaller exhaust valve that you already have. The power is in the intake valve and port flow mostly anyways, but it would be good to see 220 on the exhaust for your big build.

66-3X2 442

Believe it or not but NHRA put a minimum limit on how SMALL the SS/AH hemi exhaust valves can be. Go figure.

Battenrunner

Thanks for that info, it makes more sense for that rule now, right?

We had to go to the smaller exhaust valve to make room for the larger intake valve when we went from 2.05 to 2.125.

2.125 was the largest off the shelf Manley diameter with the weird length required for our Batten heads.

if I would have had more time, probably would’ve ordered 2.16 or 2.17’s

Clark455

Here are the valves currently installed in these heads:


Valve Sizes are Intake 2.125 / Exhaust 1.68

They appear to be able to do the duty. In speaking with Knowltons, they had said the exhaust bowl should be about 85% in relation to the ports. That may be it right there, as the ports do not appear to be consistently enlarged enough to make that overall calculation. Spoken the other way around, that statement indicates that the ports need to opened up further. I have an invite from Knowltons to ship them in to them so that they can take a look at them - they have done these before and know exactly what it will take (and likely where the thin spots may be in these ports). I will see what my guy Reed here locally (Grant Racing) may have to say, just need to get the heads over to him for an initial look / see (but he's backed up a solid year as of this writing). Again, if I can just conclusively identify what to go after, I'll make it happen.

Does anybody see anything in particular about this exhaust valve? CanadianOlds has mentioned that the outer edges could be radiused to provide a slight improvement. Anybody else have anything to possibly add?

I'm torn between buying the Flow Performance 2.0 setup and chasing it myself as the costs to do that end up being about what it will cost to have the exhaust ports massaged further outsourcing them. So, on the one hand, I could hit the flow number on my own AND have the ability to flow all future heads I may tangle with OR use the funds to have the exhaust ports worked further by Knowltons. Knowing where the "DO NOT GO THERE" thin spots may be hiding in the exhaust ports is something that I may find out the unpleasant way if I tangle with these heads - now I'm curious to see if Reed (Grant Racing) may be able to sonic test the port walls to see if / where any thin spots may exist. I suppose the most logical thing I should do first is stop talking about it and just hop in a car already and make the trip across town to Grant Racing to compare notes as step one...

Speaking of hitting water, my CVF serpentine belt system was experiencing a harmonic problem at the A/C compressor. Since the compressor on their arrangement only is mounted to their larger front winged bracket, I thought to myself that the compressor needed to be supported at the backside to the cylinder head. I plotted exactly where to drill a hole into the thick looking front flat of the cylinder head. I grabbed an 1/8" drill bit to run a pilot hole into the spot. No sooner than a 1/4" in, uh oh, I hit water !@#$%^&*! Back pedaling out of that, I drilled larger, installed a 1/8 NPT stainless pipe plug Loctited in - Ooops! So, that wasn't such a good idea. The hole I drilled was only a 1/2" away from the inward most accessory bolt hole, thought for sure I'd be safe there - NOPE! I ended up making a bracket that instead bolted to two out of the three accessory bolt holes in the front of the head, connecting the backside of the A/C compressor to the head = solved the problem of the A/C compressor vibrating at idle / off idle speeds. Too bad I accidentally hit water where I wanted to mount a single simple support bushing and straight through bolt. Short of running one of these Speedmaster castings through a band saw, you just never know where the water may be (doh!) lol... Hmmm - a bare Olds casting is $500 - maybe I should run one through the bandsaw! That would tell me where the thin spots are haha.

Paul...

CANADIANOLDS

85% is way under what the bowl opening should be.

Battenrunner

Dale, what do you like to see on the exhaust for the bowl diameter vs. the valve seat diameter?

I know that was an issue we went through with our Batten heads when we took them apart… the bowls were basically at the edge of the valve seat diameter with a 2.055 intake valve, so there was no velocity in the intake port for sure. I know Vortecpro ended up finally getting to about 89-90% for the bowl to valve seat diameter with the 2.125 valves. Obviously, they picked up well on flow, but would have been even better with a 2.15 or 2.17.

There was some trickery involved in the exhaust seat and valve sizing there that isn’t applicable to a normal head scenario, so I won’t mention that here.

CANADIANOLDS

min 90% on exhaust while radiusing/knocking off edges.

keep the transition edges sharp on the intake. Best I’ve got out of battens without welding was about 337 with a 2.2” int