Hey Charles, thanks much for the efforts and the updates! The results from your tests, as well as those of other's, are really eye opening as to how different SBF heads and production heads in general really can be....Another excellent video, please keep up the great work!.....Would love to see the results of larger valves as well??....Thanks again, best regards.
Looking forward to the E7TE series. In my opinion a quiet port is a stable port, less turbulence. It would be interesting to know how quiet it is at higher test pressures. An observation if I may, I always think that port volume comparisons between different heads are essentially useless as port length significantly affects volume. Comparing before and after volumes against the same type of heads is useful information to me. Maybe looking at port volume change as a percentage might be a useful reference, as is L/D. Another great video Charlie. Regards Greg
Everyone always says that E7TE castings aren't worth the work you put in them. I say if you can do most of the work yourself the E7TE head is very much worth the effort. It's a solid starting point with plenty of areas to improve upon.
I have always wondered just how you got hooked up with the great David Vizard? I have been following his work for over 30 years and he is one of the few people who you can trust 100 percent.
Something else I was looking up im not sure if Ive ever heard you or DV mention at least in regard to E7... I forgot the newer SS valves I got happen to have undercuts in them ( I have to measure to see how much or what type and backcut) . Have you ever tested or noted changes in an undercut stem? I saw someone claim 20+ CFM in lower lift numbers (dont remember the engine), Eric Weingarter mentioned them picking up only 2-4 CFM ( I mean if that equates to 5-10 hp why not opt for an undercut.. ) Or is it dependent on valve jobs. I also read it likes a 25 degree backcut. Big Dogs porting guy once told me E7s hate backcuts maybe he had the wrong angle... And then on that shootout engine that got 361 hp 371 tq, what valves ( I think I know the sizes ) and did you use a scavenge plateau on those ones? Id have to seek in the comments where you linked me to the shakedown but I only have the dyno video I think. Ive gotta start bookmarking these I get lost in so many videos and forget what was shown where ... oh and in a similar forum I saw someone claim 220 cfm on stock 1.78 / 1.46 valves... what the hell are these guys doing? lying? I have yet to find the secret so I thought possibly undercut is a possible way they get those figures
To confirm that the E7TE are truck heads, the designation "T" in the the E7TE designates Truck...They started using them on the 5.0 mustang as well from 87 to 95. The ford 460 head also uses the E7TE designation starting in 87.
Makes since . The 4.6 2v was designed for the crown vic. The 302 probably was designed for f150. The 5.0 coyote was the first engine ford designed for the mustang.
@@thatguy83ful Huh? He's just talking about the E7TE head itself was designed for trucks, not the whole 302/5.0 engine. The smallblock Ford debuted in 1962 & was called the "Fairlane V8". Its notoriously bad exhaust ports are a direct result of being designed to fit between those 1960's Ford shock towers. After Ford won the '66 & '67 24 Hours of LeMans, the 427 FE engine was outlawed & engine size was limited to 5 liters maximum, so Ford stroked the 289 to 302 for 1968 to meet the new rules. 1969 was the 1st year any smallblock Ford (302) was used in the F-series trucks. (The F150 didn't come out until 1975.) "The Coyote was the first engine designed for the Mustang"?!?! What about the 351 Cleveland? Or the Boss 302? Or the Boss 429? Etc?
@@whiplashmachineIt's been known for decades they were designed for trucks. The '86 head (E6AE) was junk, but they had already destroyed the molds for the '85 head (E5AE). The existing stock of the similar E5TE truck was used followed by the more common E7TE. Look up a Ford casting number decoder or the books; "The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical & Performance Handbook" by Al Kirschenbaum, "High-Performance Engine Parts Interchange" or back issues of "Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords" magazine or "5.0 Mustang" magazine from 25+ years ago.
Charlie I have some stock 1.94/1.54 valves from 3 bar Gt40’s. If you don’t have any there I could send you a couple of sets. I’m curious to know too. Thanks for the Ford stuff. Personally I like the 3 bar gt40’s over the p’s.
I’m sorry, I meant 1.84/1.54 valves. Stock sizes for 3 bar gt40’s. If you’d still like them I’ll gather them up. Would be kind of a stepping stone on the smaller “p” exhaust valve.
Still a fan of the E7 for stealth mode..lol As far as what they can do,it's hard to dispute Low 11 high 10 second 1/4 mile times by today's standards...I'm looking forward to putting your work at the top. We may accomplish the quickest/Fastest Stock bottom end E7 headed mustang on the planet...no NOS, no turbo, no supercharger.
With your model puddy or 3D printed internal dimensions of the ports to chambers. Why not sell these split or made so they can be a go/ no go type gage for a at home porting? Would allow more people to save these iron heads. Beats measuring and listening to thin metal ringing noise difference.
Take a look at fxrsdriver youtube channel he did a bigger valve in the gt40p head it raised it quite a bit and thanks for the Ford stuff. Sorry I commented before watching the whole video thanks again.
Hows it going? I'm back in E7 . took most of the summer off from grinding but finally finishing up my E7s and complete this van. I was going over my work to see where I was.. I can't remember which Powertec or series DV was showing typical bowl work but he shows a bias toward cylinder wall as a rule of thumb? (also hipping the floor). when I originally eliminated the short turn dog leg and worked into the bowl on COC side It went from about .470" to about .560" when measuring horizontally from OD of valve stem to bowl wall. When I look down at your example i notice how the bowl is steeper at cylinder wall side and how it lays back at COC like you can really see the direction of flow when looking at throat. I started to kind of match the valve guide distance of cylinder wall to the short turn coc side but I wasn't sure if with the design of E7s if the bias toward the cylinder wall is correct? Or if its actually COC that is a little more or if they can be equalized. I ask and im being strict on this because I'm also running 1.78" valves too so i dont want to make them too big . curtain areas obv increasing with cam but still. When I lay a 1/4" egg burr it cant quite fit at floor between guide boss and cylinder wall side as a rule of measure without having exacts. Mine looks similar to this but hard to tell if it's symmetrical distances or biased. Thanks!
@@servediocylinderheads actually ordered a cheap opened sonic on ebay.. might as well know the truth. I feel like anything under .600" from stem od to bowl side is probably ideal for the cam / stock valve but we are looking for at least an 1/8" / .125" or at least .100 for casting integrity right? is it true you can just use vaseline as couplant? Thanks
1) It is common knowledge the small block Ford head's poor exhaust port design goes back to the notorious intrusive 1960's shock towers which the engine was designed to fit between. 2) That large "mushroom" EFI manifold came out in 1986, not '87. 3) That intake & the E7TE heads were not only used on the GT Mustang, they were also used on the LX 5.0 Mustang which were actually quicker because they were lighter than the GT. 4) They were considered very turquey engines (made more torque than the carbureted version they replaced) thanks in large part to that long runner upper EFI intake plenum.
While it may be a poor tradeoff from a performance perspective, I'm quite glad they're as narrow as they are as it's allowed them to fit into many platforms that SBCs can''t accommodate without fabrication. In the end there's a slew of larger v8s that could push bigger numbers but none of them had such convenient packaging while maintaining competitive power levels.
Stupid question but I noticed some conflicting info and obviously becomes very apparent when just a visual look at these bowls. It seems that for the E7 the most important is the short turn / dog leg toward the center of cylinder and area of the bowl whereas the outside is barely touched... on a GT40 it seems the opposite? yet the tunnels both seem to be canted to the right ( while upside down ) . Not sure if I missed something in my lessons but in a powertec episode DV taught like the GT40 as a general rule of thumb but it seemed to not be true for the E7. I've also been working on researching "reverse swirl fins" or "elkins fin" I see this GT40 has a slight pinch ( or fin behind the guide). I have seen more people doing this on an E7 like a trickflow may have in the back of the guide boss .. Just wasn't sure if it was a pointless thing to carve into an E7. I've found forums of like nascar/winston cup head engineers talking about it how it can improve burn uniformity, BSFC, and help limit higher lift swirl that messes with atomization ( Id assume this is a bigger deal on a carb and not so much port to port injection but maybe im wrong ) . Other stating that its one of those things that shows 15 cfm on a bench but nothing on dyno or in a 1/4 mile. Another example on a restrictor plate engine a Bob Mahoney said was good for 2-3 hp. I know before you mentioned Fords/E7s having low swirl. I have seen at least one example of someone cutting into the roof to be able to put a guess a "gliddens fin" in front of the guide as well.
Actually the e7 is shaped like the gt40 as much as the casting permits! The cores are shaped quite different. Same as gt40 and gt40p cores. A fin on the ssr may work great on these but I think by the time you shape the ssr to work at higher lifts they are quite thin.
Shaping the guide right is needed to push e7 flow over about 220cfm. E7's cut right have more than enough swirl. I should know better than answer questions at 3am.
@@servediocylinderheads ha sorry ive been a night owl i never think about people getting notifications on their phone. Oh okay that's interesting.. I just didn't know why its always mentioned on E7 to focus more on the short turn/dog leg side. coc. Yeah I started putting little wedges behind my guides... kind of a goldfish tail shape like a TFS. I shaved the height down slightly. Whats funny is I cant find science on the "clocking" of the fins and I noticed most reverse fins end up like at 10 degrees or so to the right and i think its probably because when we're looking at the bowl we dont think of the tunnel being canted and looking horizontally to the head and thats where they end up on guys.. I wonder if that actually makes a difference if it were oriented toward tunnel... Like how swirl ramps start half way up the guide. Yeah I wasn't sure about even cutting the roof. I took some old notes and diagrams with a rule of thumb of basically changing the short side radius and floor to match the apex and height of a GT40P. I looked at cross sections of how much metal to water jacket ( i dont have that fancy sonic tool like you do lol ) but it seems like 3/8 or so? but it seems to be a safe rule of thumb here.. But basically the E7 apex and pinch from the floor into the window miked at about 1.225" so I opened this and blended it to like a 1.333" trying to use 1.340 as red line. ( GT40p i guess is about a 1.340 ) so it looks close to an 1/8 of an inch. window definitely looks different.. but I wasn't sure if more is supposed to come off of the roof at all that would allow to even cut a fin ( that killer E7 video guy has some big ones cut in ) how I see some people. I feel like if anything came off the roof itd only be like a 1/16 of an inch.. I mean I am going for velocity so I was considering not even touching the roof outside of the dogleg/guide/bowl as I have been. This is also a stock valve heads, so i figured it was more than enough to get to 1.300s. But that short side / floor change is what I saw someone start to get over the 200 mark at .500... He took more out ( than 1.340 clearance) and obv as the simple calculus seems to go, he gained high lift numbers but it really hurt low lift numbers. But anyway thanks for the help, double checking and having solid numbers (even if not the most competitive ) to go by has made it worth while.
@@tonypepperoni229 E7's are pretty thick but they aren't thick everywhere. .1" off anywhere is safe. Check the killer E7 guy's flow numbers to these. His are good but I bet thin.
@@servediocylinderheads Oh and also.. I know you have all of the tooling and I have seen you check velocity with a pitot tube before. I have like an anemometer I picked up at some point with a big pitot tube for furnaces/hvac. Its kind of crude and not perfect the way i set it up with air on a shop vac.. but it is interesting to see velocity in different areas or after porting. I basically took a shop vac measured at about 30 m/s or 67 mph at the opening of the vacuum hose as a peak velocity.. I did notice differences like... Say stick the vacuum at the port entry and notice it goes from around 10 m/s around the Stock short side to now about 8 m/s or so around a ported area . Naturally given the same vacuum speed ( obv changes with lift of a cam spec ) I'd say thats natural as overall cubic volume and its potential.. is still increasing. But given that static speed and seeing velocity drops from porting.. Is there like a hard measure or rule of thumb you have been able to test when using a pitot? Like .. A particular redline of M/S drop that tells you when youre getting into non optimal velocity and slowing down. Like I said my floor to short turn is a cloned GT40p so from a 1.225 to about a 1.333 so not too crazy .. but I just wonder if there is a speed change that signals us that something is too big.. or a way to check as we go. I just thought it was a neat way to understand where air is fast and slow and kind of a new dimension to mike things to double check. It is crude but it is a thought. Also I just realized the vacuum at a port is backwards for testing intake LOL. But anyway
I've been sitting on 3 sets of GT40P heads. I want to have bigger valves put in, but not sure what size to put in. What size gives diminishing returns?
@@servediocylinderheads would you recommend a .500- .515 lift cam with 126 @50 duration and 112 sep. cam for a set of gt40p heads ? Whould it be worth it to do a little guide, bowl and blending on them first ?
Sorry was going by memory, was I off ! Its a TFS track max cam ( stage 1) .499/ 510 lift 112 lobe separation 221/225 duration @.50 or would the GT40p heads work better with less duration and more lift ? No power steering and T5 trans 63 Fairlane.
@@erikredlich You need to look at the whole combo and set it up for where you want the torque to be as far as rpm. Having flow info on heads would help. Thanks
More than I get to do a set of new aluminum castings. The new aluminum will make more power. If you are really interested contact me charlesservedio@gmail.com. Thanks
Charlie, take it up to 1.56" to 1.58" on the exhaust and raise the roof a touch. I'm welling to bet it stays quite and flows more. I wouldn't go past 1.90" on the E7's but the GT40P's? 1.94" to 2.000" max😉
They do but they still flow better then stock SBF castings. I had a set of J castings done by Dwayne Porter that flowed 260cfm on a 340. It made 480hp at 6800rpms with a big Crower solid flat tappet cam.
What would the cost be to have a set of E7TEs ported like this, Trick Flow 11rs 170 head outflows this head at every lift point for $1,550 from Summit. Are these in the same cost ball park?
On the dyno similar heads I ported beat gt40 x professionally ported aluminum heads that flowed 270 cfm. Beat them in torque and hp. Cfm is important but not everything. That much development E7's are $2k no parts just labor. Expensive yes. Over 100 hours of work to get there. I am planning on a project with them soon shooting for 500+ hp.
@@servediocylinderheads 270 cfm from a E7TE is impressive but I still say not cost competitive to whats on market but what would great to see is dyno this E7 setup then change heads for a set of AFR165s and TF 11Rs. All the best to you.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the effects of the different ports in relation to the valve sizes. Good info.
⁵/þu
Hey Charles, thanks much for the efforts and the updates! The results from your tests, as well as those of other's, are really eye opening as to how different SBF heads and production heads in general really can be....Another excellent video, please keep up the great work!.....Would love to see the results of larger valves as well??....Thanks again, best regards.
Looking forward to the E7TE series. In my opinion a quiet port is a stable port, less turbulence. It would be interesting to know how quiet it is at higher test pressures. An observation if I may, I always think that port volume comparisons between different heads are essentially useless as port length significantly affects volume. Comparing before and after volumes against the same type of heads is useful information to me. Maybe looking at port volume change as a percentage might be a useful reference, as is L/D. Another great video Charlie. Regards Greg
Excellent work Charles, thank you for sharing!!!!
Everyone always says that E7TE castings aren't worth the work you put in them. I say if you can do most of the work yourself the E7TE head is very much worth the effort. It's a solid starting point with plenty of areas to improve upon.
Quiet flow is less turbulent than loud pulsating or turbulent which moves less air.
I have always wondered just how you got hooked up with the great David Vizard? I have been following his work for over 30 years and he is one of the few people who you can trust 100 percent.
I did a video on how I did.
Great information brother.🤘
Actually the ‘87 351w still had a carb on it (Holley 4bbl). In ‘88 it got fuel injection.
Nice video, thank you.
You are welcome!
@@servediocylinderheads I only know because I have an ‘87 f250. That year the 351w and the 460 were the last 2 Ford motors that had a carb.
Something else I was looking up im not sure if Ive ever heard you or DV mention at least in regard to E7... I forgot the newer SS valves I got happen to have undercuts in them ( I have to measure to see how much or what type and backcut) . Have you ever tested or noted changes in an undercut stem? I saw someone claim 20+ CFM in lower lift numbers (dont remember the engine), Eric Weingarter mentioned them picking up only 2-4 CFM ( I mean if that equates to 5-10 hp why not opt for an undercut.. ) Or is it dependent on valve jobs. I also read it likes a 25 degree backcut. Big Dogs porting guy once told me E7s hate backcuts maybe he had the wrong angle... And then on that shootout engine that got 361 hp 371 tq, what valves ( I think I know the sizes ) and did you use a scavenge plateau on those ones? Id have to seek in the comments where you linked me to the shakedown but I only have the dyno video I think. Ive gotta start bookmarking these I get lost in so many videos and forget what was shown where ... oh and in a similar forum I saw someone claim 220 cfm on stock 1.78 / 1.46 valves... what the hell are these guys doing? lying? I have yet to find the secret so I thought possibly undercut is a possible way they get those figures
I think it was me who got 220 cfm on an e6 head with stock valve size. Back cut on intake only.
Yes, scavenge plateau
To confirm that the E7TE are truck heads, the designation "T" in the the E7TE designates Truck...They started using them on the 5.0 mustang as well from 87 to 95.
The ford 460 head also uses the E7TE designation starting in 87.
Never heard them called truck heads before. They were on everything that had a 302/351 '87 up
Makes since . The 4.6 2v was designed for the crown vic. The 302 probably was designed for f150. The 5.0 coyote was the first engine ford designed for the mustang.
@@thatguy83ful Huh? He's just talking about the E7TE head itself was designed for trucks, not the whole 302/5.0 engine.
The smallblock Ford debuted in 1962 & was called the "Fairlane V8". Its notoriously bad exhaust ports are a direct result of being designed to fit between those 1960's Ford shock towers. After Ford won the '66 & '67 24 Hours of LeMans, the 427 FE engine was outlawed & engine size was limited to 5 liters maximum, so Ford stroked the 289 to 302 for 1968 to meet the new rules.
1969 was the 1st year any smallblock Ford (302) was used in the F-series trucks. (The F150 didn't come out until 1975.)
"The Coyote was the first engine designed for the Mustang"?!?! What about the 351 Cleveland? Or the Boss 302? Or the Boss 429? Etc?
@@whiplashmachineIt's been known for decades they were designed for trucks.
The '86 head (E6AE) was junk, but they had already destroyed the molds for the '85 head (E5AE). The existing stock of the similar E5TE truck was used followed by the more common E7TE.
Look up a Ford casting number decoder or the books; "The Official Ford Mustang 5.0 Technical & Performance Handbook" by Al Kirschenbaum, "High-Performance Engine Parts Interchange" or back issues of "Muscle Mustang & Fast Fords" magazine or "5.0 Mustang" magazine from 25+ years ago.
Thanks for the post i learned some history today thanks to you!!!
Nice comparison of numbers...........
Interesting screen name...
Charlie I have some stock 1.94/1.54 valves from 3 bar Gt40’s. If you don’t have any there I could send you a couple of sets. I’m curious to know too. Thanks for the Ford stuff. Personally I like the 3 bar gt40’s over the p’s.
Yes Please!
I like the Gt40's better than the p's
I’m sorry, I meant 1.84/1.54 valves. Stock sizes for 3 bar gt40’s. If you’d still like them I’ll gather them up. Would be kind of a stepping stone on the smaller “p” exhaust valve.
@@JohnThomas-vb9se Yes, I could use them. charlesservedio@gmail.com.
Thanks!
So the two heads would need different ramp rates on camshaft selection , how would you choose ?
Good question. Depends on application.
I am always amazed by your work but I think the best route for me is buying AFR 185 cc enforcer heads.
Be sure to watch my video on the enforcer heads that I work up.
@@servediocylinderheads. Yes sir I will, thank you for sharing your secrets, simply amazing what you know.
@@cobramike13bravo63 long slow learning curve, still learning!
Still a fan of the E7 for stealth mode..lol
As far as what they can do,it's hard to dispute Low 11 high 10 second 1/4 mile times by today's standards...I'm looking forward to putting your work at the top.
We may accomplish the quickest/Fastest Stock bottom end E7 headed mustang on the planet...no NOS, no turbo, no supercharger.
Hmmm. That sounds fun!
With your model puddy or 3D printed internal dimensions of the ports to chambers. Why not sell these split or made so they can be a go/ no go type gage for a at home porting? Would allow more people to save these iron heads. Beats measuring and listening to thin metal ringing noise difference.
I was never good at the ringing metal technique. Go no go gauges have been made in the past but I doubt they sold many.
Take a look at fxrsdriver youtube channel he did a bigger valve in the gt40p head it raised it quite a bit and thanks for the Ford stuff. Sorry I commented before watching the whole video thanks again.
Hows it going? I'm back in E7 . took most of the summer off from grinding but finally finishing up my E7s and complete this van. I was going over my work to see where I was.. I can't remember which Powertec or series DV was showing typical bowl work but he shows a bias toward cylinder wall as a rule of thumb? (also hipping the floor). when I originally eliminated the short turn dog leg and worked into the bowl on COC side It went from about .470" to about .560" when measuring horizontally from OD of valve stem to bowl wall. When I look down at your example i notice how the bowl is steeper at cylinder wall side and how it lays back at COC like you can really see the direction of flow when looking at throat. I started to kind of match the valve guide distance of cylinder wall to the short turn coc side but I wasn't sure if with the design of E7s if the bias toward the cylinder wall is correct? Or if its actually COC that is a little more or if they can be equalized. I ask and im being strict on this because I'm also running 1.78" valves too so i dont want to make them too big . curtain areas obv increasing with cam but still. When I lay a 1/4" egg burr it cant quite fit at floor between guide boss and cylinder wall side as a rule of measure without having exacts. Mine looks similar to this but hard to tell if it's symmetrical distances or biased. Thanks!
To be safe take about the same off both sides if you don't have a sonic. Thanks
@@servediocylinderheads actually ordered a cheap opened sonic on ebay.. might as well know the truth. I feel like anything under .600" from stem od to bowl side is probably ideal for the cam / stock valve but we are looking for at least an 1/8" / .125" or at least .100 for casting integrity right? is it true you can just use vaseline as couplant? Thanks
@@tonypepperoni229 I actually use hair gell that has lots of glycerin in it. Cheap $3.98 for 16 oz. Works great.
.125 is good.
@@servediocylinderheads that works!
1) It is common knowledge the small block Ford head's poor exhaust port design goes back to the notorious intrusive 1960's shock towers which the engine was designed to fit between.
2) That large "mushroom" EFI manifold came out in 1986, not '87.
3) That intake & the E7TE heads were not only used on the GT Mustang, they were also used on the LX 5.0 Mustang which were actually quicker because they were lighter than the GT.
4) They were considered very turquey engines (made more torque than the carbureted version they replaced) thanks in large part to that long runner upper EFI intake plenum.
Good info. Thanks
While it may be a poor tradeoff from a performance perspective, I'm quite glad they're as narrow as they are as it's allowed them to fit into many platforms that SBCs can''t accommodate without fabrication. In the end there's a slew of larger v8s that could push bigger numbers but none of them had such convenient packaging while maintaining competitive power levels.
@@DeusTex-Mex This is all true. Thanks
👍💪
Stupid question but I noticed some conflicting info and obviously becomes very apparent when just a visual look at these bowls. It seems that for the E7 the most important is the short turn / dog leg toward the center of cylinder and area of the bowl whereas the outside is barely touched... on a GT40 it seems the opposite? yet the tunnels both seem to be canted to the right ( while upside down ) . Not sure if I missed something in my lessons but in a powertec episode DV taught like the GT40 as a general rule of thumb but it seemed to not be true for the E7. I've also been working on researching "reverse swirl fins" or "elkins fin" I see this GT40 has a slight pinch ( or fin behind the guide). I have seen more people doing this on an E7 like a trickflow may have in the back of the guide boss .. Just wasn't sure if it was a pointless thing to carve into an E7. I've found forums of like nascar/winston cup head engineers talking about it how it can improve burn uniformity, BSFC, and help limit higher lift swirl that messes with atomization ( Id assume this is a bigger deal on a carb and not so much port to port injection but maybe im wrong ) . Other stating that its one of those things that shows 15 cfm on a bench but nothing on dyno or in a 1/4 mile. Another example on a restrictor plate engine a Bob Mahoney said was good for 2-3 hp. I know before you mentioned Fords/E7s having low swirl. I have seen at least one example of someone cutting into the roof to be able to put a guess a "gliddens fin" in front of the guide as well.
Actually the e7 is shaped like the gt40 as much as the casting permits! The cores are shaped quite different. Same as gt40 and gt40p cores. A fin on the ssr may work great on these but I think by the time you shape the ssr to work at higher lifts they are quite thin.
Shaping the guide right is needed to push e7 flow over about 220cfm. E7's cut right have more than enough swirl. I should know better than answer questions at 3am.
@@servediocylinderheads ha sorry ive been a night owl i never think about people getting notifications on their phone. Oh okay that's interesting.. I just didn't know why its always mentioned on E7 to focus more on the short turn/dog leg side. coc. Yeah I started putting little wedges behind my guides... kind of a goldfish tail shape like a TFS. I shaved the height down slightly. Whats funny is I cant find science on the "clocking" of the fins and I noticed most reverse fins end up like at 10 degrees or so to the right and i think its probably because when we're looking at the bowl we dont think of the tunnel being canted and looking horizontally to the head and thats where they end up on guys.. I wonder if that actually makes a difference if it were oriented toward tunnel... Like how swirl ramps start half way up the guide. Yeah I wasn't sure about even cutting the roof.
I took some old notes and diagrams with a rule of thumb of basically changing the short side radius and floor to match the apex and height of a GT40P. I looked at cross sections of how much metal to water jacket ( i dont have that fancy sonic tool like you do lol ) but it seems like 3/8 or so? but it seems to be a safe rule of thumb here.. But basically the E7 apex and pinch from the floor into the window miked at about 1.225" so I opened this and blended it to like a 1.333" trying to use 1.340 as red line. ( GT40p i guess is about a 1.340 ) so it looks close to an 1/8 of an inch. window definitely looks different.. but I wasn't sure if more is supposed to come off of the roof at all that would allow to even cut a fin ( that killer E7 video guy has some big ones cut in ) how I see some people. I feel like if anything came off the roof itd only be like a 1/16 of an inch.. I mean I am going for velocity so I was considering not even touching the roof outside of the dogleg/guide/bowl as I have been. This is also a stock valve heads, so i figured it was more than enough to get to 1.300s. But that short side / floor change is what I saw someone start to get over the 200 mark at .500... He took more out ( than 1.340 clearance) and obv as the simple calculus seems to go, he gained high lift numbers but it really hurt low lift numbers. But anyway thanks for the help, double checking and having solid numbers (even if not the most competitive ) to go by has made it worth while.
@@tonypepperoni229 E7's are pretty thick but they aren't thick everywhere. .1" off anywhere is safe. Check the killer E7 guy's flow numbers to these. His are good but I bet thin.
@@servediocylinderheads Oh and also.. I know you have all of the tooling and I have seen you check velocity with a pitot tube before. I have like an anemometer I picked up at some point with a big pitot tube for furnaces/hvac. Its kind of crude and not perfect the way i set it up with air on a shop vac.. but it is interesting to see velocity in different areas or after porting. I basically took a shop vac measured at about 30 m/s or 67 mph at the opening of the vacuum hose as a peak velocity.. I did notice differences like... Say stick the vacuum at the port entry and notice it goes from around 10 m/s around the Stock short side to now about 8 m/s or so around a ported area . Naturally given the same vacuum speed ( obv changes with lift of a cam spec ) I'd say thats natural as overall cubic volume and its potential.. is still increasing. But given that static speed and seeing velocity drops from porting.. Is there like a hard measure or rule of thumb you have been able to test when using a pitot? Like .. A particular redline of M/S drop that tells you when youre getting into non optimal velocity and slowing down. Like I said my floor to short turn is a cloned GT40p so from a 1.225 to about a 1.333 so not too crazy .. but I just wonder if there is a speed change that signals us that something is too big.. or a way to check as we go. I just thought it was a neat way to understand where air is fast and slow and kind of a new dimension to mike things to double check. It is crude but it is a thought. Also I just realized the vacuum at a port is backwards for testing intake LOL. But anyway
I've been sitting on 3 sets of GT40P heads. I want to have bigger valves put in, but not sure what size to put in. What size gives diminishing returns?
1.94"/1.6" will get the job done.
@@servediocylinderheads would you recommend a .500- .515 lift cam with 126 @50 duration and 112 sep. cam for a set of gt40p heads ? Whould it be worth it to do a little guide, bowl and blending on them first ?
@@erikredlich The numbers you quoted are not right. Sorry
Sorry was going by memory, was I off ! Its a TFS track max cam ( stage 1) .499/ 510 lift 112 lobe separation 221/225 duration @.50 or would the GT40p heads work better with less duration and more lift ? No power steering and T5 trans 63 Fairlane.
@@erikredlich You need to look at the whole combo and set it up for where you want the torque to be as far as rpm. Having flow info on heads would help. Thanks
How much to do a set of gt40p
More than I get to do a set of new aluminum castings. The new aluminum will make more power. If you are really interested contact me charlesservedio@gmail.com. Thanks
Charlie, take it up to 1.56" to 1.58" on the exhaust and raise the roof a touch. I'm welling to bet it stays quite and flows more. I wouldn't go past 1.90" on the E7's but the GT40P's? 1.94" to 2.000" max😉
Looks like no top cut with a valve that big due to that plug boss. Using the bigger valve.
What is your reasoning on the exhaust valve size?
@@servediocylinderheads hello,this Eddie, have you ever done a ford fe 390 heads,what number can I reach you at
@@eddiefe428 I have no experience with those heads. charlesservedio@gmail.com
@@servediocylinderheads once you make the head breath better, exhaust needs to breath as good or better too.
Why cant they make intake port same size as intake valve opening ! To stop all porting ????🤦🙋 stainless tubing maybe?
Cost
Small block mopars have raised exhaust ports.
They do. Except they have that stupid bulge in the roof with water under it!
They do but they still flow better then stock SBF castings. I had a set of J castings done by Dwayne Porter that flowed 260cfm on a 340. It made 480hp at 6800rpms with a big Crower solid flat tappet cam.
What would the cost be to have a set of E7TEs ported like this, Trick Flow 11rs 170 head outflows this head at every lift point for $1,550 from Summit. Are these in the same cost ball park?
On the dyno similar heads I ported beat gt40 x professionally ported aluminum heads that flowed 270 cfm. Beat them in torque and hp. Cfm is important but not everything. That much development E7's are $2k no parts just labor. Expensive yes. Over 100 hours of work to get there. I am planning on a project with them soon shooting for 500+ hp.
@@servediocylinderheads 270 cfm from a E7TE is impressive but I still say not cost competitive to whats on market but what would great to see is dyno this E7 setup then change heads for a set of AFR165s and TF 11Rs. All the best to you.
@@msk3905 270 cfm id what the gt40 x flowed the E7' s flowed 238 and still beat the higher flowing head
@@msk3905 It is only cost effective if you are building a sleeper. It can't be fast, it has stock 220hp E7 heads!
@@servediocylinderheads Interesting were these 238 cfm heads on same setup/car as the 270 cfm ones?
reynold's doesn't enter into the discussion with ports. they're too short. think peak air speed and shear.
Not sure what you are saying.
Lol !
I am glad you think it is funny!