This is the alchemy part of building and optimizing a given engine to get max power. No single part will ever be the best but may be best on a specific engine. I would even venture to say an identically built short block would yield slightly different results using exactly the same top end parts. You are doing a great service to all of us motorheads Eric, keep up the good work.
Reminds me what the Nascar engine builders had to figure things out when they had to use restrictor plates. Can you imagine how many heads and intakes they went through?
What this really shows well is that the total combination of components and valve events is so important when getting every last bit of power and why one "killer" manifold or heads might not be good on another similar combination.
The project X215 head is really a very special cylinder head. All of these heads tested are really good. Thanks Eric for another tremendous job well done. Definitely need to get your book on these and join the club.
I have the project x 215 on my 427 with a hydraulic roller 247 / 255.. 573 /. 583 lift 110 centerline added 1.6 rockers super victor with a holley sniper and I'm right at 10.5 to 1. I have this in my 84 Monte ss with a Richmond 5 speed and a 3.70 gear and it is super strong. It has great street manners with the AC on and tho no track testing yet I feel the car is easily capable of 10,s my other gbody has a 414 sbc has afr 245s E85 custom solid roller and a 94mm turbo and runs low 8s on only 19lbs that I do drag and drives ( clocked 8200 miles in just over a yr with only 2 rocker failures) i am a sbc ride and die guy so I trust what Eric says and watched all his dyno vids and wanted a powerful cost-effective option for my street car and the Pro Maxx heads did more than deliver so enough rambling by me but I want to thank Eric for all his hard work because I know u do lots of heads but I and many others still live and breath small block Chevy and as time goes on things change I'm glad you are always trying new things and I'm always up for learning new things so keep up the great content!!!
if you listen carefully, you can hear people's heads exploding in the distance🤣🤣😂😂Awesome content Eric, as always. always appreciate you candor and honesty. thanks for all the great info.
I had built a 388 sbc with 11.2 to one with solid roller 262 268 bullet cam with 690 675 lift and 106 lobe sep super Vic cnc ported runners with a 4 hole super sucker 2” spacer ran on pump gas 38 on timing with a 850 and 235cc factory afr heads 2.10 1.60 and made 620 at 7000 and 540 torque at 5200awesome video I just can’t believe I made that much power on a small cubed motor I was mind blown by the power I have daily driven it in a nova and put 6000 miles on it
Your work ethic and discipline are top notch, you strive for excellence this keeps me coming back to your channel. If I ever have any engine work, builds you will have my business! Thanks for your effort and scientific approach. 😊
Love the videos. You really don't need to apologize so much. Sometimes I think the Dyno and all the testing cause more questions than answers. Also I found the Dyno numbers do not always calculate to quicker/faster times at the track. I've beaten lighter cars with much higher hp Dyno results. It doesn't always make sense. Great content thanks
Six or ten ft/lbs over the budget head? Afr's advertised flow numbers would lead me to believe a much bigger difference. I'd guess the difference between all three at the track would be negligible
We tested a 1" open spacer on a 400 hp 331 sbc with a performer intake and lost 20 hp, we were all shocked cuz that rarely happens... thats why we test.
Very interesting! ONE thing I wanted to mention: When people say “…more torque down low…” it usually means from idle onwards. Your data mostly shows 4000rpm and up. That is not considered “down low” in everyday applications. Remember the TPI manifolds, that basically ran out of flow at 4400rpm!? Best wishes
I run a Schafiroff Ultra Street 434. I comes with AFR 210 heads. 950 Quick Fuel. The cam is mild with .591 lift, 109 Intake CL and 252/256 duration at.050. It made 598 at 6300, and TQ at about 4600. I have run a best of 10.38 at 129 @ 3200 lbs in a 73 Nova. I shift at 6500 and 7000 through the back. I have been told my heads are too small for the motor. To me I think these small heads work well with the combination. Recovers well at the shift and pulls hard top end. Far from a race engine it is quite happy cruising on the street. Not sure what my point is but enjoy these videos from Eric ! Thanks
Perhaps the 302-355 CI is why the smaller port = more torque down low saying came to be? A larger bore & stroke gets fed easier sucking through a larger straw?
The most important thing is port matching. If you leave any kind of ledge especially on the shortest path between the throttle body and the valve opening, your laminar flow path gets out of wack. Second thing is harmonics. The flow path oscillates with revs due to valve pulses and exhaust pulses, and when your rev range is between 4000 and 8000, your double 4 engine is at it's second "Octave". First being 0-4K and third 8K to 12K. Larger intake track flows more past 8K, if the port has no ledges. On the second octave it's all about the shape, not the size. Valve position and tilt makes a difference, but can also slow the flow down thus not creating a desired flow pattern i.e swirl inside the combustion chamber. This means even though the static flow without the intake is one number, the chamber fill between the rev range is totally different number, due to laminar flow volume, harmonic oscillation and swirl.
@@garlandjones7709 That is the dark arts of all motor tuning. Fluid dynamics has it's base in quantum physics. It's not about slapping in this shiny part, or that shiny part, they all need to be massaged together to get the best result. Naturally aspirated engine is a wind instrument. All one needs to know, what kind of sound makes the most torque. To get that knowledge, takes decades or a lifetime.
@@oikkuoek you tune around those harmonics with the intake manifold and the headers. My point was that you can't simply say they're from 0-4k, 4-8, 8-12. Every time he swapped an intake manifold, he changed it.
Seems to be more the combination on the intake side rather than any one piece? Unfortunately not many people have the resources to test multiple combinations. Then you have the difference from dyno testing to track testing😊.
if i liked small blocks id definitely go with your design you have some nice looking work.my old vic jr built a lot of power with teeny tiny 172 150 valves in an old set of 283 power pack heads on a 355 small block i had that i ported back in high school went 11.40s in a chevy s10 nobody believed it had such small valves
Great content Eric, the thickness of the heads and milling is causing you some grief with the port anighnment. Makes it tricky for you. Interestingly by the looks of it the way the dyno load in displays in the dyno figures the first 3 or 4 hundred rpm might as well be almost disregarded if the load in rpm is different. Great persistence 👍
I honestly think a lazy port has less torque down low. If your bigger port has the same port energy as smaller port per cross section. The bigger port will nake more torque.
My wild guess is the duelplane restricts airflow just enough up stream that the higher flowing bigger port heads became a velocity penalty and the manifold dictated total airflow available removing the gain from the afr or pro max. Another words. The 215 is a better match to the duelplane but the less restrictive singleplane allows the larger head to deliver on max cfm. The midrange in my experiance gets hurt with giant ports and the low range where the engine speed is low and no ram air assist is happening. A big hole allowing nature to fill is best. Since at low speed there is also lots of fill time in real time that is not engine time in degrees. Only mother nature really knows what is happening. Testing is the only way. 💪🏁
Eric, Questions for you . Can the 235 heads be angle milled to reduce chamber without drastic intake port alignment issues? I noticed on dyno raw sheets that air fuel ratio is not consistent thru out the pull (adr227 with 4812 dual plane )… I’m also wondering about quench.. piston down the hole like .005? 041 head gasket . Thanks for all the hard work and information!
How about hooking up a small hot water service to heat motor up on the Dyno... quicker , less running to get motor up to temp... We do that in Australia...
Eric first, you're doing great with the testing and it's the only way to better your operation. A couple things. Curtis Boggs reminds me all the time, I ain't chasing flow numbers flow numbers don't win races. And just because this intake or head works NA doesn't meant it'll perform the same under boost. And they have pacific intakes for pacific heads and for pacific combinations due to testing. And you talk about your flow blenches and how they read, and I know you like MBE, but they use a SuperFlow flow bench. If I buy a set of cylinder heads, I buy from brodix and I always buy the intake they recommend. Last deal I bought was 24° oval port Head Hunter heads so I bought the BM 2027-O intake and had the heads and intake ported together.
Love this video really goog job its amazing how the stock 215 made such a good hp number with that intake.. Personally im buying a set of promaxx 215x trying it on a 13.1 383 solid roller 270@50 custom grind with a 2975 victor jr wonder will it be good for 550hp or better
Wonder if it’s the cam vs intake vs head making the difference? All I know is I can’t wait to get my new heads on! Thanks for all the testing even though I’m a sbf guy, but I appreciate horse power! I’m kinda curious when you start testing ls stuff, I’d like to see the difference with the fuel injection manifold vs carb manifolds, I feel like it’ll be kinda close to the sbf with the valve arrangement.
@@garlandjones7709 Can you explain why you're nor a fan of testing like this? It seems like it would be very beneficial. I know most porters test test and test to see what works after they design a head or intake is why I ask.
@@jasonstormoen in a generic way, yes. I'm not a fan of testing like this because out of all of these combos only one can be optimum or none of them will be. Not only are they not equal on compression, but to even it from here could help or hurt either combo. You're trading compression vs airflow loss for the 235s or compression vs airflow GAIN for the AFRs or ruining its quench. Assuming the heads had equal chambers, each has different port sizes, shapes, velocities, cross sectional areas, possibly valve sizes(id have to watch again) etc.... they will want to make their most efficient power in a certain range that is different than the other heads. Meaning they will want a different cam, intake, and headers. Even if the differences are small, the differences add up. They have different intake port alignments as well, not only vertical but horizontal. This was mentioned in the video. I'm making another assumption here that the cam is custom ground. I here you on the head porting...but that's not a and b to what's going on here. Pretend for a moment Eric designed the AFR 227. WHETHER Eric specced this cam or his cam guy did, if he started over with the AFR 227s he'd have a different cam whether he penciled it or his cam guy did. This isn't a knock against Eric. I LOVE this channel and his content. I just think it can be slightly misleading. Part of what I said above is most likely what's going on with the intake manifold issue in this test. But there's no good explanation of why it's happening and most people can't interpret and understand the data whether they know the data or not. On the other hand, it's getting very close to "speed secrets" and business advantages to del e into stuff like that at the same time. People, and I don't blame them one bit, don't won't to let too many cats out of the bag. Sooner or later you have no edge
Instead of milling the heads to get the same compression ratios and messing up alignment on that one ,could you run different thickness head gaskets on them to get the compression closer and that would split the differences in intake misalignment a little with them all that way? Thanks for all your info and hard work!
You could use a thicker gasket. And when you do it'll ruin quench and bring you closer to detonation even lowering the compression ratio. Piston to head clearance is to be optimized before others variables addressed. The best fix is in the piston itsself. Edit: reread your post. I'm betting his quench is set to a spot to where if he tightens it up any he's going to be constantly nervous about his valves making out with his pistons as it sits. Probably not much more than .005-.007 on the table to play with in his gasket thickness. Not nearly enough to make up ,4-6cc of combustion chamber
Unless you are racing dyno's, none of the torque numbers below stall matter at the drag strip. Bigger or smaller port torque results around the stall rpm should be the torque numbers you're honing in on for discussion. The engines will never see the low rpm's going down the drag strip. Most of everything I see in this video is 5600 to 6000 rpm stall examples. Do yourself and your followers a service and discuss the port size torque results around the given torque converter stall rpm's.
If only it were that simple. I cannot begin to tell you how many comments there have been wanting me to show low rpm torque. Even though I have said numerous times this is not a tow motor.
I disagree, what the curve does under where you leave is very important,it hits the converter harder, not my first rodeo my friend, I probably shouldn't have wasted my time but feel obligated to teach people
@@billlittle4285 Torque converters multiply torque below stall on a scale from 1.5 to x 2 depending on the stator chosen by the builder. The stators that multiply torque on the high side of the scale are less efficient at finish line rpm's. With that being said, the bottom line is this... Between the two versions of engines in this video, the smaller port version will stall a converter higher than the larger port version because it has a higher peak tq number, it don't matter the larger port version makes more torque at 4200. This is why I say it's not only useless tq, it's useless info. The higher tq number at peak tq version will always stall any specific converter higher. This is also why I say discuss the engine output around stall rpm's if you wanna come to a rational idea of which version engine will produce a better et timeslip at the drag strip. If you're racing dyno's on the other hand, carry on with what you're currently doing-discussing. Which is useless at the drag strip.
So...from 25 years of racing super stock cars, small block engine, any time I picked torque at 4500 while maintaining the HP I went faster in the 60, my engine stalled at 6200 and leave at 38 to 4000, peak power was at 7000 and torque at 5300, shift at 77 and crossed at 8500, have you ever heard of transient torque, that's what the car sees.
Transient torque, torque hanging around peak torque. After peak torque, for as long as the transient torque isn't diminishing at a higher rate than the rpm's are increasing, you're making hp. Below peak torque or above peak torque any time you can inflate torque you're gonna go faster on the drag strip, the problem in this case is the bigger port doesn't inflate the transient torque. That's why I say it's meaningless unless you're racing dyno's. The bigger port higher flowing head needs a bigger camshaft to inflate the transient torque around peak torque. That's where the confusion is in cycling heads and intakes on the Big and small block engines with the same camshaft, what's it really tell anyone useful, when it's a specific combo that'll make a cylinder head or intake shine. It's all about the combination of parts and approach that inflates the volumetric efficiency above and below peak torque. It's really not as confusing as it may sound. I tell the young guys I talk to all the time, if you make changes and the torque converter stalls higher, you're gonna go faster on the drag strip. LoL! It's as simple as that.
So I am kinda wondering does this go back to the beginning where the average size port did the best then once you did bigger heads the bigger manifolds did better so I am curious the reason why probably the 215 did the best on the dual plain because it's the smallest manifold for the smallest head then the afr 227 with the better overall flow it wanted the better bigger manifold to make a better combo that's just my guess but yeah doesn't mean it will happen every time for sure but it keeps my mind up thinking ok the bigger heads want bigger and better manifolds then smaller heads want average or smaller manifolds i swear i keep seeing that pattern on your dyno test so it has to be that I don't know
215 kept up with both that cost more and bigger/ ported. Wouldn't see difference on the street/ maybe at the strip . I'd say buy the 215 cc . Goooooo Promaxx
lol! To top it off the next guy has the opposite setup and it a killer. The craziest thing i have ever seen guy had a 318 dart! Manifold on one side header on the other side. He ran the piss out of this thing. Street racing. This thing moved. Missing to many gears and yes knock knock. Then he got to put in the 440 !!! It ran ok but nothing like that stock 318 with the weird setup. Why? lol. That’s life. Good luck.
Much of the emphasis seems to be around big vs small port. Only way we can gain true data/understanding is to use 2 identically designed ports and manifolds with 1 set scaled larger than the other. In reality these tests provide a mish mash of useless info. Not telling us anything other than ok this head responds differently than that head to this manifold. Could be numerous reasons why, something as simple port/man alignment. Sincerely what am I to take from this, ok if I put this head with this man and get the port mismatch exactly the same this is what I can expect? Where's the science? Appreciate ur efforts Eric, only trying to be constructive. How about fuel curves? I know little about them other than 2 engines dynod with the same power the 1 with the better fuel curve with accelerate faster than the other. You're a racer yeh ?
You don't have to apologize all the time man, we appreciate you putting in the time to make the videos
He sure doesn’t most up to date info seen
This is the alchemy part of building and optimizing a given engine to get max power. No single part will ever be the best but may be best on a specific engine. I would even venture to say an identically built short block would yield slightly different results using exactly the same top end parts. You are doing a great service to all of us motorheads Eric, keep up the good work.
Reminds me what the Nascar engine builders had to figure things out when they had to use restrictor plates. Can you imagine how many heads and intakes they went through?
That was very interesting
@@hankclingingsmith8707 yep alot of things going on.
The 3 things needed for an efficient port, AIR SPEED, AIR SPEED and AIR SPEED Darin Morgan
What this really shows well is that the total combination of components and valve events is so important when getting every last bit of power and why one "killer" manifold or heads might not be good on another similar combination.
What it shows is that an engine is not a simple air pump.
It is a complex, thermodynamic air pump.
The project X215 head is really a very special cylinder head. All of these heads tested are really good. Thanks Eric for another tremendous job well done. Definitely need to get your book on these and join the club.
I have the project x 215 on my 427 with a hydraulic roller 247 / 255.. 573 /. 583 lift 110 centerline added 1.6 rockers super victor with a holley sniper and I'm right at 10.5 to 1. I have this in my 84 Monte ss with a Richmond 5 speed and a 3.70 gear and it is super strong. It has great street manners with the AC on and tho no track testing yet I feel the car is easily capable of 10,s my other gbody has a 414 sbc has afr 245s E85 custom solid roller and a 94mm turbo and runs low 8s on only 19lbs that I do drag and drives ( clocked 8200 miles in just over a yr with only 2 rocker failures) i am a sbc ride and die guy so I trust what Eric says and watched all his dyno vids and wanted a powerful cost-effective option for my street car and the Pro Maxx heads did more than deliver so enough rambling by me but I want to thank Eric for all his hard work because I know u do lots of heads but I and many others still live and breath small block Chevy and as time goes on things change I'm glad you are always trying new things and I'm always up for learning new things so keep up the great content!!!
if you listen carefully, you can hear people's heads exploding in the distance🤣🤣😂😂Awesome content Eric, as always. always appreciate you candor and honesty. thanks for all the great info.
I don't blame you for testing. Nothing beats your own experiences. Goes to show you how combination specific every combination is.
Thank you
I had built a 388 sbc with 11.2 to one with solid roller 262 268 bullet cam with 690 675 lift and 106 lobe sep super Vic cnc ported runners with a 4 hole super sucker 2” spacer ran on pump gas 38 on timing with a 850 and 235cc factory afr heads 2.10 1.60 and made 620 at 7000 and 540 torque at 5200awesome video I just can’t believe I made that much power on a small cubed motor I was mind blown by the power I have daily driven it in a nova and put 6000 miles on it
It would be interesting to see what the velocities are on those three heads with the different intakes in place.
Your work ethic and discipline are top notch, you strive for excellence this keeps me coming back to your channel. If I ever have any engine work, builds you will have my business! Thanks for your effort and scientific approach. 😊
It shows first hand in his work. I have a set of BBC heads he did for me
Love the videos. You really don't need to apologize so much. Sometimes I think the Dyno and all the testing cause more questions than answers. Also I found the Dyno numbers do not always calculate to quicker/faster times at the track. I've beaten lighter cars with much higher hp Dyno results. It doesn't always make sense. Great content thanks
The Super Victor brought the AFR's alive
Six or ten ft/lbs over the budget head? Afr's advertised flow numbers would lead me to believe a much bigger difference. I'd guess the difference between all three at the track would be negligible
@@travispfannmuller7717Id like to see that test, that would tell all
We tested a 1" open spacer on a 400 hp 331 sbc with a performer intake and lost 20 hp, we were all shocked cuz that rarely happens... thats why we test.
Great video very interesting and puzzling. Definitely not what you would think. thanks for your hard work Eric.
Very interesting!
ONE thing I wanted to mention:
When people say “…more torque down low…” it usually means from idle onwards.
Your data mostly shows 4000rpm and up. That is not considered “down low” in everyday applications.
Remember the TPI manifolds, that basically ran out of flow at 4400rpm!?
Best wishes
I run a Schafiroff Ultra Street 434. I comes with AFR 210 heads. 950 Quick Fuel. The cam is mild with .591 lift, 109 Intake CL and 252/256 duration at.050. It made 598 at 6300, and TQ at about 4600. I have run a best of 10.38 at 129 @ 3200 lbs in a 73 Nova. I shift at 6500 and 7000 through the back. I have been told my heads are too small for the motor. To me I think these small heads work well with the combination. Recovers well at the shift and pulls hard top end. Far from a race engine it is quite happy cruising on the street. Not sure what my point is but enjoy these videos from Eric ! Thanks
ruclips.net/video/jdyBt7thiKs/видео.html
What's the compression on your 434? Can you run pump gas?
@@bradwhite3294 10.5 to 1 Run 94 octane up in Canada
Perhaps the 302-355 CI is why the smaller port = more torque down low saying came to be? A larger bore & stroke gets fed easier sucking through a larger straw?
The most important thing is port matching. If you leave any kind of ledge especially on the shortest path between the throttle body and the valve opening, your laminar flow path gets out of wack. Second thing is harmonics. The flow path oscillates with revs due to valve pulses and exhaust pulses, and when your rev range is between 4000 and 8000, your double 4 engine is at it's second "Octave". First being 0-4K and third 8K to 12K. Larger intake track flows more past 8K, if the port has no ledges. On the second octave it's all about the shape, not the size. Valve position and tilt makes a difference, but can also slow the flow down thus not creating a desired flow pattern i.e swirl inside the combustion chamber. This means even though the static flow without the intake is one number, the chamber fill between the rev range is totally different number, due to laminar flow volume, harmonic oscillation and swirl.
I think you are correct
How do you know where the harmonic is changing? It's not going to be at a set rpm for each of these tests.
@@garlandjones7709 That is the dark arts of all motor tuning. Fluid dynamics has it's base in quantum physics. It's not about slapping in this shiny part, or that shiny part, they all need to be massaged together to get the best result. Naturally aspirated engine is a wind instrument. All one needs to know, what kind of sound makes the most torque. To get that knowledge, takes decades or a lifetime.
@@oikkuoek you tune around those harmonics with the intake manifold and the headers. My point was that you can't simply say they're from 0-4k, 4-8, 8-12. Every time he swapped an intake manifold, he changed it.
Seems to be more the combination on the intake side rather than any one piece? Unfortunately not many people have the resources to test multiple combinations. Then you have the difference from dyno testing to track testing😊.
Great video, always very informative!
if i liked small blocks id definitely go with your design you have some nice looking work.my old vic jr built a lot of power with teeny tiny 172 150 valves in an old set of 283 power pack heads on a 355 small block i had that i ported back in high school went 11.40s in a chevy s10 nobody believed it had such small valves
Excellent video! You are saving people a lot of money and research! I swore by tunnel rams and afr heads, looks like the gap has narrowed.
Great content Eric, the thickness of the heads and milling is causing you some grief with the port anighnment. Makes it tricky for you.
Interestingly by the looks of it the way the dyno load in displays in the dyno figures the first 3 or 4 hundred rpm might as well be almost disregarded if the load in rpm is different.
Great persistence 👍
Thanks for the video each video is educational
😂 the more you learn, the less you know 😉
Keep up the good work 💪👍
You learn you really don't know anything without testing it.
@@shaunheath3236understanding the results and knowing the results aren't the same
Awesome video!!! Keep it coming
I honestly think a lazy port has less torque down low. If your bigger port has the same port energy as smaller port per cross section. The bigger port will nake more torque.
so, we relearn that a good head needs to be paired with the right intake.
My wild guess is the duelplane restricts airflow just enough up stream that the higher flowing bigger port heads became a velocity penalty and the manifold dictated total airflow available removing the gain from the afr or pro max. Another words. The 215 is a better match to the duelplane but the less restrictive singleplane allows the larger head to deliver on max cfm. The midrange in my experiance gets hurt with giant ports and the low range where the engine speed is low and no ram air assist is happening. A big hole allowing nature to fill is best. Since at low speed there is also lots of fill time in real time that is not engine time in degrees.
Only mother nature really knows what is happening. Testing is the only way. 💪🏁
What about a Wilson manifold??.. mabe the afr combustion design is why..seems to always make great power in all different combos
Awesome info
Follow the numbers to get to where you want to go. 😊
Eric,
Questions for you .
Can the 235 heads be angle milled to reduce chamber without drastic intake port alignment issues?
I noticed on dyno raw sheets that air fuel ratio is not consistent thru out the pull (adr227 with 4812 dual plane )…
I’m also wondering about quench.. piston down the hole like .005? 041 head gasket .
Thanks for all the hard work and information!
The afr is wrong on the sheets. Quench is .041
Port velocity !
How about hooking up a small hot water service to heat motor up on the Dyno... quicker , less running to get motor up to temp... We do that in Australia...
My takeaway is you hurt your own head by milling it down. I believe the port mismatch cost you more power than the increase in compression.
Eric first, you're doing great with the testing and it's the only way to better your operation. A couple things. Curtis Boggs reminds me all the time, I ain't chasing flow numbers flow numbers don't win races. And just because this intake or head works NA doesn't meant it'll perform the same under boost. And they have pacific intakes for pacific heads and for pacific combinations due to testing. And you talk about your flow blenches and how they read, and I know you like MBE, but they use a SuperFlow flow bench. If I buy a set of cylinder heads, I buy from brodix and I always buy the intake they recommend. Last deal I bought was 24° oval port Head Hunter heads so I bought the BM 2027-O intake and had the heads and intake ported together.
Love this video really goog job its amazing how the stock 215 made such a good hp number with that intake.. Personally im buying a set of promaxx 215x trying it on a 13.1 383 solid roller 270@50 custom grind with a 2975 victor jr wonder will it be good for 550hp or better
Pro Max.215best bang for the buck
Great video, Eric!!!
Why not angle mill the heads, not too much trouble, it will be worth it. What about a/f ratio down low?
So, was the reason for the power differences total quantity of air flow, or was it quality of air/fuel mixture?
Wonder if it’s the cam vs intake vs head making the difference? All I know is I can’t wait to get my new heads on! Thanks for all the testing even though I’m a sbf guy, but I appreciate horse power! I’m kinda curious when you start testing ls stuff, I’d like to see the difference with the fuel injection manifold vs carb manifolds, I feel like it’ll be kinda close to the sbf with the valve arrangement.
Everything affects everything else. Im not a fan of testsnlike these, but people want to see them.
@@garlandjones7709 Can you explain why you're nor a fan of testing like this? It seems like it would be very beneficial. I know most porters test test and test to see what works after they design a head or intake is why I ask.
@@jasonstormoen in a generic way, yes. I'm not a fan of testing like this because out of all of these combos only one can be optimum or none of them will be.
Not only are they not equal on compression, but to even it from here could help or hurt either combo. You're trading compression vs airflow loss for the 235s or compression vs airflow GAIN for the AFRs or ruining its quench.
Assuming the heads had equal chambers, each has different port sizes, shapes, velocities, cross sectional areas, possibly valve sizes(id have to watch again) etc.... they will want to make their most efficient power in a certain range that is different than the other heads. Meaning they will want a different cam, intake, and headers. Even if the differences are small, the differences add up. They have different intake port alignments as well, not only vertical but horizontal. This was mentioned in the video.
I'm making another assumption here that the cam is custom ground. I here you on the head porting...but that's not a and b to what's going on here. Pretend for a moment Eric designed the AFR 227. WHETHER Eric specced this cam or his cam guy did, if he started over with the AFR 227s he'd have a different cam whether he penciled it or his cam guy did.
This isn't a knock against Eric. I LOVE this channel and his content. I just think it can be slightly misleading. Part of what I said above is most likely what's going on with the intake manifold issue in this test. But there's no good explanation of why it's happening and most people can't interpret and understand the data whether they know the data or not.
On the other hand, it's getting very close to "speed secrets" and business advantages to del e into stuff like that at the same time. People, and I don't blame them one bit, don't won't to let too many cats out of the bag. Sooner or later you have no edge
Hi Eric, question. Is 1.55" springs the largest diam.spring for sbc?
Yes for most. I don’t know know why you would go bigger there are 1.50 diameter springs good to .950 lift.
Great video!
These videos are cool. Do you ever port and flow any of the Oldsmobile aluminum heads?
No
Thanks!
Thanks man
Hey! What about a very streetabe comparison between 2500 to 6000 combos, torque is king on the street!
Instead of milling the heads to get the same compression ratios and messing up alignment on that one ,could you run different thickness head gaskets on them to get the compression closer and that would split the differences in intake misalignment a little with them all that way? Thanks for all your info and hard work!
You could use a thicker gasket. And when you do it'll ruin quench and bring you closer to detonation even lowering the compression ratio. Piston to head clearance is to be optimized before others variables addressed. The best fix is in the piston itsself.
Edit: reread your post. I'm betting his quench is set to a spot to where if he tightens it up any he's going to be constantly nervous about his valves making out with his pistons as it sits. Probably not much more than .005-.007 on the table to play with in his gasket thickness. Not nearly enough to make up ,4-6cc of combustion chamber
Eric, what timing did the 406 like with the 227 heads, also was that a 4150 2””super sucker HVH spacer?
?? Quick question.
Think the port mis-alignment kills as much power as the compression gaines by milling the heads? 😏
You can watch the video I did on it.
@@WeingartnerRacing ha ha ha just fucken with ya.
I've seen all your videos.
Man.....lot of good work.
Unless you are racing dyno's, none of the torque numbers below stall matter at the drag strip. Bigger or smaller port torque results around the stall rpm should be the torque numbers you're honing in on for discussion. The engines will never see the low rpm's going down the drag strip. Most of everything I see in this video is 5600 to 6000 rpm stall examples. Do yourself and your followers a service and discuss the port size torque results around the given torque converter stall rpm's.
If only it were that simple. I cannot begin to tell you how many comments there have been wanting me to show low rpm torque. Even though I have said numerous times this is not a tow motor.
I disagree, what the curve does under where you leave is very important,it hits the converter harder, not my first rodeo my friend, I probably shouldn't have wasted my time but feel obligated to teach people
@@billlittle4285 Torque converters multiply torque below stall on a scale from 1.5 to x 2 depending on the stator chosen by the builder. The stators that multiply torque on the high side of the scale are less efficient at finish line rpm's. With that being said, the bottom line is this... Between the two versions of engines in this video, the smaller port version will stall a converter higher than the larger port version because it has a higher peak tq number, it don't matter the larger port version makes more torque at 4200. This is why I say it's not only useless tq, it's useless info. The higher tq number at peak tq version will always stall any specific converter higher. This is also why I say discuss the engine output around stall rpm's if you wanna come to a rational idea of which version engine will produce a better et timeslip at the drag strip. If you're racing dyno's on the other hand, carry on with what you're currently doing-discussing. Which is useless at the drag strip.
So...from 25 years of racing super stock cars, small block engine, any time I picked torque at 4500 while maintaining the HP I went faster in the 60, my engine stalled at 6200 and leave at 38 to 4000, peak power was at 7000 and torque at 5300, shift at 77 and crossed at 8500, have you ever heard of transient torque, that's what the car sees.
Transient torque, torque hanging around peak torque. After peak torque, for as long as the transient torque isn't diminishing at a higher rate than the rpm's are increasing, you're making hp. Below peak torque or above peak torque any time you can inflate torque you're gonna go faster on the drag strip, the problem in this case is the bigger port doesn't inflate the transient torque. That's why I say it's meaningless unless you're racing dyno's. The bigger port higher flowing head needs a bigger camshaft to inflate the transient torque around peak torque. That's where the confusion is in cycling heads and intakes on the Big and small block engines with the same camshaft, what's it really tell anyone useful, when it's a specific combo that'll make a cylinder head or intake shine. It's all about the combination of parts and approach that inflates the volumetric efficiency above and below peak torque. It's really not as confusing as it may sound. I tell the young guys I talk to all the time, if you make changes and the torque converter stalls higher, you're gonna go faster on the drag strip. LoL! It's as simple as that.
So I am kinda wondering does this go back to the beginning where the average size port did the best then once you did bigger heads the bigger manifolds did better so I am curious the reason why probably the 215 did the best on the dual plain because it's the smallest manifold for the smallest head then the afr 227 with the better overall flow it wanted the better bigger manifold to make a better combo that's just my guess but yeah doesn't mean it will happen every time for sure but it keeps my mind up thinking ok the bigger heads want bigger and better manifolds then smaller heads want average or smaller manifolds i swear i keep seeing that pattern on your dyno test so it has to be that I don't know
The engine had the air it needed, the smaller port had better air speed
Then explain why the largest head made the best power and torque on the Vic jr.
@@WeingartnerRacingCould ya use 2 gaskets for a situation of misalignment Eric?
@WeingartnerRacing do you think the bigger ports of your head worked better with the Vic Jr due to the airspeed?
Love it Brother.....
You said the bowls were bigger on one. Could it be a case of airspeed variance causing loss of momentum of the air column?
@@lollipop84858 slowing down at a larger area and then speeding up at the smaller area. All fluids take on the shape of their container.
Im no engine builder or expert head porter but those heads show a lack of quench IMO
Well it can’t get much closer it’s .041
@@WeingartnerRacing yup, thats tight. R ur pistons flat top?
@@WeingartnerRacing Mayb?
@@WeingartnerRacing i appreciate ur sharing Eric, i enjoy n view all ur stuff. U work hard
@@WeingartnerRacing Thanks to people like u, we all learn
215 kept up with both that cost more and bigger/ ported. Wouldn't see difference on the street/ maybe at the strip . I'd say buy the 215 cc . Goooooo Promaxx
Promaxx not procomp.
@@WeingartnerRacing lol ty
That engine needs 13:1, your 235 heads and e85. Sounds like 660+
At 11-1 compression and higher have you tried e85?
Yes that’s the next video.
@@WeingartnerRacing awesome 😎
Eric, do these heads have the same intake port design as the afr lt4 227 heads?
Yes. It’s either the race port or competition port 227
Bottom line is these promax heads for the money is no joke
lol! To top it off the next guy has the opposite setup and it a killer. The craziest thing i have ever seen guy had a 318 dart! Manifold on one side header on the other side. He ran the piss out of this thing. Street racing. This thing moved. Missing to many gears and yes knock knock. Then he got to put in the 440 !!! It ran ok but nothing like that stock 318 with the weird setup. Why? lol. That’s life. Good luck.
Much of the emphasis seems to be around big vs small port. Only way we can gain true data/understanding is to use 2 identically designed ports and manifolds with 1 set scaled larger than the other. In reality these tests provide a mish mash of useless info. Not telling us anything other than ok this head responds differently than that head to this manifold. Could be numerous reasons why, something as simple port/man alignment. Sincerely what am I to take from this, ok if I put this head with this man and get the port mismatch exactly the same this is what I can expect?
Where's the science?
Appreciate ur efforts Eric, only trying to be constructive.
How about fuel curves? I know little about them other than 2 engines dynod with the same power the 1 with the better fuel curve with accelerate faster than the other. You're a racer yeh ?