112% agree. Go nuts and put a Comp 07-503-8 on it with 1.6 Scorpion rockers and the .026” ‘Impala SS’ head gasket. Lift with 1.6 on that cam is .537/.544. Duration is 224/230 on a 112 LSA. If you wanted to go the extra mile, deck the block to .015” and you get a quench of .041” and you’re in the realm of 38+* timing and very happy little motor.
I bet you are under 9:1. Just means you need...BOOOOST!!! That being said I hope your larger cam has a tighter LSA. I have built a bunch of small bore 305s and every single one likes a LSA no tighter than 110 and if running a carb they like 106-108. The 305 size bore needs some overlap to help scavenge the chamber and get the air/fuel charge into it. The second benifit of the tighter lsa is that it advances the intake centerline which closes the intake valve sooner, increasing your dynamic compression ratio. Also to answer your question from last nights livestream. The rhoads vmax lifters do considerably tame the cam at lower engine speeds. It reduces the duration 15-20°. That 218/224 cam would behave like a 198/204 cam at low rpm. 198/204 @ .050 with a 106 LSA would give you alot more torque down at the load in rpm. Then as the rpm increases the lift and duration increase up until around 3,500-4,000 rpm where full lift and duration is restored. At high rpm they also act like a very good anti pump up lifter meaning less valve float. Maybe the guys at rhoads would loan you a set for testing purposes...remembering they also work in a LS with an adjustable valvetrain. I would also love to see the iron vs aluminum heads revisited when you stroke the thing to a 305. The larger engine will better take advantage of the flow and help offset the compression loss. Still cool that the little 265 made 300 hp and would do it all day long on 87 octane. It is probably about 8.5:1 now. Would be a fun little economical engine for something lightweight like a S10 or a disco era late 70s/early 80s malibu.
Id like to see the flow numbers to the ported heads and go all out on a cam, even if the pistons need to be notched with a tool. If the valve isn't even opened at or near the cylinder head's best flow point, why bother? And to your point about the timing events....this engine needs a chance to rev.
8.39:1 is what I came up with from the cc change assuming it was 9.4:1 Probably some stock LT1 heads with some mild flash clean-up would make for a nice daily driver in a little g-body with a 4l60
Great video Richard for starters, I think the dyno is a great test platform, great for bragging rights haha seriously though seems like you found the hp limits of the combination, when you changed the combination you found more powers.
@@claypaul2012 Yeah the Tpi and Lt1 were the more popular engines to swap in to s10 when I was in high-school. The lt1 and Ls engines were around but still to expensive for me at the time. I wanted to swap a TPI 5.7 in my 92 so bad but I was kinda happy I didn't. I put a carbbed 327 in the s10 and it would walk my buddy with the same truck but he had the TPI 5.7.
Don't suck, they work exactly as designed, and perform very well when you take into account the original design teams goals. They exceeded them in every way. It simply isn't designed for high rpm. Stock iron head tpi engines with a pair of grand national turbos in a 3rd gen f body have gone high 9's in the quarter mile. And drove to the track getting over 18mpg. What, I ask you, sucks about that? If you want high rpm get a different intake/induction system. Simple. If you want off idle response and bigblocks like torque that gets decent mileage stay with tpi
This combo needs a turbo with the TPI and a electronic boost controller, 14PSI up to 4500 2 psi per each 500 PRM there after. Would be killer on the street.
What most people don't know is that most gains are made pocket porting and propper valve jobs. Preferably 5 angle rather than 3 or if you can't afford that, and you're doing it yourself, a 2" abrasive disk with say 9 vertical cuts will make a good flow transition. Watch his videos if you value torque. How many engine builders have you seen make 1.4+ ft. Lbs.per cube? That's over 540 ft. Lbs. from a 383 gen 1!
Id like to see you add ring gap to a stock lt shortblock and see how well it would hold up to boost. Would it be more durable like an ls with ring gap, or are the stock pistons/compression it's downfall for boost?
Will the 1.6 rockers raise the 450 lift to 480 lift!! But still needs more duration too. Also needs get compression up to 10 to 1 ! Thanks for sharing your videos!
Huge change in chamber size! What's the diff in compression ratio? Run the smaller headers. Shave the heads (maybe they're not your heads or maybe thats a bunch to shave) or run a diff piston (if they're even available).
Maybe didn't add much, but it didn't take anything away with the larger heads. Would be interesting to see with some dome pistons and the lt1 aluminum heads.
I think you should have tried the COMP Cams Thumpr Hydraulic Roller Camshafts 08-601-8 Dur: 235 int./249 exh. Lift: 0.522 int./0.509 exh. lsa 107 it probably would have made 300 hp + and similarly torque. Always love your videos and the way you think out of the box.
Interesting, a few years ago when we were class racing I used to get a 50lb weight break for having iron heads. SBC, RHS 235's is what I had and it always ran great. They took the weight break away after one season, lol
The heads probably flow pretty good, it’s just a bad combo, the big chambers combined with the intake, just isn’t going to make a lot of power, stock ported heads with a duel plane may be the key
How did the aluminum heads change the timing curve? I have a feeling to make NA power with the TPI you need more cam and a lot more compression ratio with the small headers. Stock aluminum LTI heads might be the way to go for a little more port velocity.
I've had a low mile 4.3 L99 sitting on a shelf for years. I also have a 1993 M29 T56. My 68 camaro convertible original 327/275 runs but is real tired. 4.3 M29 swap? Then Install a 3.55 8.5" 10 bolt from a previous camaro project.
I’m thinking the LT1 heads worked in spite of being a poor fit for the engine. The chamber size dropped compression from 9.5 or 10:1 down a full point to 8.5 or 9:1, not good for more cam. I seem to remember EQ made an iron head with 50cc chambers and Vortec ports-that would work. Add a cam with 0.550 lift or so to heads that flow in that same 250-ish CFM and the 4.3 might wake up! Of course, once you get a decent NA combo, boost it about 20 psi for some fun!
I would be curious to know the power increase if any going from the stock LT1 ram's horn style manifold's old manifold's to a set of 1 and 5/8 Long tube headers
Wasn't there guy back in the day running a 4.3 L99 in a B-body in the Super Stock class? I wonder how many watts his mill was making and what his setup was.
Great little engine. I think the 4.3 is just too small to take full advantage of the aluminum lt1 heads and the bore diameter is to small for the larger valves in the lt1 heads. A turbo will definitely wake it up
@@claypaul2012 Maybe in something heavy it would. In something light like a S10 it would get substantially better fuel economy. I had both a 305 and 350 in the same G20 van with a 700r4 and 3.08 gears. The 305 averaged 2-3 mpg better in mixed driving and got 23 mpg highway where the 350 got 19. Same 601 305 heads, same cam profile, same intake, same carb, same headers and exhaust. Just swapped the short blocks. The 305 had 200K on it and the 350 was a fresh build.
@@claypaul2012 You may be right, but I never really think about it. Richard's channel focuses on performance rather than mileage. I tend to think the same way.
What effect does boost play with different intakes? Since wave tuning in the intake is so influential, does increasing the density of the air amplify that effect?
Ok... factory specs say the L99 was approx. 9.9:1 with factory heads and gaskets etc. Going from 49 cc head to a 57.5 cc head drops compression to approximately 8.8:1 - figure 9.0 or less depending on head gasket thickness, deck clearance etc... Thats got to be worth 20+ hp at peak. Richard... what do you think?
@@richardholdener1727 ok... so if we were magically able to correct for the chamber size, we could say the ported heads are worth about 15 to 20 hp? Something like 6% to 8% hp based on this starting level... i.e. first cam. Hmm
@@MrScottt28 That magic compression correction will be the 1/2" stroke difference that makes the 265 a 305. Also going from a 5.94" rod to a 5.7" rod will slightly increase the dynamic compression ratio even if the static stayed the same.
@@richardholdener1727I thought for the drop from 49cc at (assuming) 9.5:1 compression to a 64cc camber and got into the high 7:1 range. I thought the loss of power got more drastic the lower the compression got so I figured a loss of 20hp from compression despite the gain from better flow and chamber design. Ps. I'd still love to drop one of these rotating assemblies in a regular 305 block with the Trick Flow 175cc soper 23 heads for 305's. Would be about perfect for a daily driver g body lol and put the 4.3L badges on the 2" cowl hood 🤣🤣
Hey Richard how are you doing.?? I have a question for you or anyone who has the answers what do you suggest to be the best choice for HEADS for a non Vortex 305sbc.?? Thanks Chris Griffin and I love the videos keep it coming
There is twisted wedge 175 heads for 305 engines but why would you buy them? For the slightly more money then those heads you can buy a remanufactured l31 long block that comes with 4 bolt mains and a forged crank. They are cam springs and intake away from 450hp. You might be able to make more power with alloy heads but it will be less drivable with less torque. If you got a 350 vortec from a junkyard and put cams springs and intake it would probably make more power than your 305 ever could.
I would think a good head you might find out there used would be the L98 corvette aluminum head, as it was also sold through GM performance parts, it has screw in studs and guide plates, 1.94 1.50 valves and a 58cc chamber, its also angle plug(in case that matters in your app, idk) Now I realize this is a "350" head, so its up to you to find out if it will "work". I know I have personally seen a .30 305 with a .480 lift cam running a set that had just been milled to clean them up. So I guess what I'm saying is you might check this out. If somebody has had an issue with this they might offer some advice. Or flip the fuch out.;) good luck!
Usually a tunnel ram makes more torque and power at almost every point on the dyno compared to a single plane, usually a dual plane beats it right at the bottom of the curve by a tiny bit. With this setup with nice flowing heads it might really make it rock.
its only 450 lift plus another 30 from rockers puts it at 480 even stock sbc springs dont coil bind here have to check back his older vids to see what springs he has but im sure they were aftermarket ones so i dont know what the issue is here, stock lt4 springs can handle 530 lift and there like 40 bucks for a set
Ditch the seriously flow limited tpi and turbo it !! The camshafts are terrible by the way . Lobe separation is a mile from where is should be and is holding motor back .
Yep like a 218/224 (or even 224/232) @ .050, .480 to .500 lift, 106 LSA and 102 ICL. Could keep the low-end torque using rhoads vmax lifters or even standard rhoads lifters too.
@@richardholdener1727 I have put them in 3 different engine combinations so far and they are like having two seperate cams in the same engine as far as manners and torque go. My latest 383 went from 195 psi to 210 psi at cranking speed. That earlier intake valve closing really traps extra cylinder pressure at low rpm. Idle vacuum is higher and the engine makes more torque off-idle. The first engine I put them in was a L30 305 Vortec with a 218/218, 106 LSA, 0.450 (with 1.6 rocker for ~.480 lift) flat tappet cam. Had it in a 99 Tahoe. The stock 1,600 rpm stall torque converter was a touch too tight for the cam. I had a melling lifter collapse on the fairly new build, maybe 5,000 miles on it. Against normal wisdom I switched only the lifters. Used the original style rhoads. Set them to 1/2 turn. Upon starting the truck for the first time, the idle immediately smoothed out, made 2-3 in/hg more vacuum and had alot better off-idle torque. It made enough of a difference under 4,000 rpm that I had to retune the fuel tables in the PCM.
@@richardholdener1727 I also suggested the lower lift for obvious potential valve to bore clearance issues with the larger intake valves in the LT1 heads. The valve does not come out of the chamber itself until about .470" and as you exceed 0.500" I feel you will run into a problem without notching the block deck.
Would you say that 220 degrees duratiuon is getting up there for an engine of this size? For the 4.8 LS, that's starting to get serious. This is an interesting experiment for sure, but to make decent numbers you either have to rev it to the moon or use a power adder. Or just skip it and use a larger engine.
Seems like everybody underestimates the power of iron heads yeah you can put aluminum heads and save some weight but this test right here proves that it is not big difference......
Is there a such thing... is a turbo short tail 400 transmission or just a 400 short tail... I know this do not have nothing to do with the video.. I just had to ask I really need to know thanks
so when you switch to aluminum heads you need to take advantage of the thermal characteristics of the aluminum and bump up the compression ratio. remember the easiest way to make a car quicker is to reduce weight
compaired to the 4,3 v6(na) , the v6 has more torque down low and peak torque comes in at 3500 rpm instead of 4000 interesting stuff for low buck street builds
The l99 heads flow about the same as l30 305 vortec heads and probably as good as the lt1 aluminum heads stock. When the cam only has 450 lift there isn't going to very much gained. These heads needed a good spring package and a 550 lift cam to take advantage of the porting
@@richardholdener1727 No, Too small. The port volume in the cast intake section is too restrictive. The length doesn't help either, but in this case it's beside the point.
@@michaelangelo8001 I've seen some guys data who have gone hog wild trying to make a tpi intake work. Even extrude honed a stock tpi intake only flows 225cfm. Sooner or later it's going to choke any set of heads. Tpi runners have an inconsistent runner cross section and reverse taper points, there is spots it's like an hour glass where the air charge has to change velocity a bunch. It's a really good idea that was horribly executed. If you had a modern nylon intake in the shape of a tpi with the same runner length it might work really well.
@@timothybayliss6680 I know. That's what I was trying to get across to Richard, but you can't tell him anything. As you say, it would be a great manifold if it had been done correctly.
Seriously, 117 LSA? Do you want this thing to put out lawnmower torque. Even if you intend to boost this thing 112-113 should be max. Mr. Visard would say unshroud the valves & increase the exhaust valve size. Check out some of his videos, he's been watching yours.
So you have the weight, volume , expense of a larger engine. But not much reward? Does not even look different? So why? Maybe time better spent on the 292! That you might use??🤔
@@bryanfox6445 no ported lt1 heads do not cost more than swapping engines lol. While the heads themselves didn't do a lot on there own, its to be expected. The whole combo has to work together so all the that available airflow isnt even being used with .450 lift and hes still running stock rockers. You cant expect to just throw ported heads on a mild combo and expect miracles. The motor turned out nearly 300fwhp which is stout for such a small combo.
@@madmod really? I just purchased a "Complete" truck engine for $350 bucks! Some guy that watches to much "YT" and had to have a "LS" swap! May not happen for everyone but not unheard of?🤔🤔
@@bryanfox6445 You think hand ported lt1 heads cost anything near a used shortblock your skewed. I source used parts to sell and am well aware of how affordable both used engines and cylinder heads are. I source lq4, 5.3, and 4.8 engines all day for $285 as well as early gen 1 coyotes and 4v lincoln engines for $260. I can get these lt1 heads assembled for $100 dollars all day.
Low mean port velocity lazy port for that cam duration. That head will only flow at longer duration cams should of stayed with stock valve. Head only good at top end r.p.m lazy untill draw or air pressure or demand can fill port, chamber, cylinder to create more air velocity even chamber size to overlap play a big roll in filling the void and raming effect.lve been porting for 5 years sorry to say that head was not mathematical or camshaft events thought through.peace
Yep engine maths.Bore stroke ratio, how much inch of valve feeds cylinder or bore area,how much valve diameter for bowl throat and cross section and port size for street or performance. valve to port length how 2 vavle or 4 vavle determine port length .vavle percentage to determine runner cross section. maths for intake runner length tuning for1,2,3,4 wave. thats with cam selection on top that and sit load other variables. Who show me that end more David vizard and John bactheal .peace
It's getting pretty tiresome of watching theses videos that is suppose to be comparing A to B dyno runs, but you do an A to whatever you choose just to get a person to watch another video of where you you put said intake back on with A test dyno run just to get another watch on UA-cam!! If you don't do back to back direct comparisons, then there isn't a comparison.
@@richardholdener1727, First off...I do really enjoy most of your video's, and I am jealous that you get to play on the Dyno testing almost everything imagined!! Just more direct comparisons when testing camshafts, rocker ratios, changes in header sizes, etc. It's just a bummer to start a video to see a comparison of A camshaft and intake in a 350 sbc, then B camshaft gets tested in a 406 stroker with different heads and compression ratio (just a example), because we all know that cyl. heads, especially AFR's can make a big difference on most combinations, and compression makes more torque, so we're left trying to figure out is camshaft B actually better then A, or something else?? And I'm speaking for the dedicated gearheads with very little budget and limited parts, so we search for people like you, and Engine Masters to help us make those hard earned spending decisions! Keep up the great job!!
I'd like to see the LT1 style intake back on with the ported LT1 heads and more cam.
112% agree. Go nuts and put a Comp 07-503-8 on it with 1.6 Scorpion rockers and the .026” ‘Impala SS’ head gasket. Lift with 1.6 on that cam is .537/.544. Duration is 224/230 on a 112 LSA. If you wanted to go the extra mile, deck the block to .015” and you get a quench of .041” and you’re in the realm of 38+* timing and very happy little motor.
I don't know if it matters if the heads only flow 245cfm when the tuned port intake only flows 198cfm per runner
Exactly
I bet you are under 9:1. Just means you need...BOOOOST!!!
That being said I hope your larger cam has a tighter LSA. I have built a bunch of small bore 305s and every single one likes a LSA no tighter than 110 and if running a carb they like 106-108. The 305 size bore needs some overlap to help scavenge the chamber and get the air/fuel charge into it. The second benifit of the tighter lsa is that it advances the intake centerline which closes the intake valve sooner, increasing your dynamic compression ratio.
Also to answer your question from last nights livestream. The rhoads vmax lifters do considerably tame the cam at lower engine speeds. It reduces the duration 15-20°. That 218/224 cam would behave like a 198/204 cam at low rpm. 198/204 @ .050 with a 106 LSA would give you alot more torque down at the load in rpm. Then as the rpm increases the lift and duration increase up until around 3,500-4,000 rpm where full lift and duration is restored. At high rpm they also act like a very good anti pump up lifter meaning less valve float. Maybe the guys at rhoads would loan you a set for testing purposes...remembering they also work in a LS with an adjustable valvetrain.
I would also love to see the iron vs aluminum heads revisited when you stroke the thing to a 305. The larger engine will better take advantage of the flow and help offset the compression loss.
Still cool that the little 265 made 300 hp and would do it all day long on 87 octane. It is probably about 8.5:1 now. Would be a fun little economical engine for something lightweight like a S10 or a disco era late 70s/early 80s malibu.
Id like to see the flow numbers to the ported heads and go all out on a cam, even if the pistons need to be notched with a tool.
If the valve isn't even opened at or near the cylinder head's best flow point, why bother?
And to your point about the timing events....this engine needs a chance to rev.
8.39:1 is what I came up with from the cc change assuming it was 9.4:1
Probably some stock LT1 heads with some mild flash clean-up would make for a nice daily driver in a little g-body with a 4l60
Great video Richard for starters, I think the dyno is a great test platform, great for bragging rights haha seriously though seems like you found the hp limits of the combination, when you changed the combination you found more powers.
I was just rewatching your 5.3/6.0 multi stage btr cam testing.
I love the look of the old TPI intakes. It's a shame that they suck. I think they are one of the coolest looking factory intakes
agreed
They suck by today's standards. In the 80s it was pretty cool for a lot of low rpm torque and decent fuel mileage for the time.
@@claypaul2012 Yeah the Tpi and Lt1 were the more popular engines to swap in to s10 when I was in high-school. The lt1 and Ls engines were around but still to expensive for me at the time. I wanted to swap a TPI 5.7 in my 92 so bad but I was kinda happy I didn't. I put a carbbed 327 in the s10 and it would walk my buddy with the same truck but he had the TPI 5.7.
@@ziptiejedi5658 I TPI swapped a G20 van. Was a fun engine in that thing.
Don't suck, they work exactly as designed, and perform very well when you take into account the original design teams goals. They exceeded them in every way. It simply isn't designed for high rpm. Stock iron head tpi engines with a pair of grand national turbos in a 3rd gen f body have gone high 9's in the quarter mile. And drove to the track getting over 18mpg. What, I ask you, sucks about that?
If you want high rpm get a different intake/induction system. Simple. If you want off idle response and bigblocks like torque that gets decent mileage stay with tpi
Would like to see the final setup with a Super Ram.
The old Lingenfelter Box, aka Accell Super Ram, no doubt man I wish I had one
@@chrisyeahbuuwassrileegowyn9279 Pizza box. There getting hard to find, and expensive.
This combo needs a turbo with the TPI and a electronic boost controller, 14PSI up to 4500 2 psi per each 500 PRM there after. Would be killer on the street.
236 to 246 at .050 would make a big difference.
Would need to be solid though . Take advantage of the rpm ... 👍👍
Hoping for a Super Ritchie intake manifold
Would love to see a fully ported tpi intake setup on a lt1.
Where is your junkyard? I need a pair of L31 heads.
How about doing a 392 international V8
Valve shrouding ,compression,on the ported heads
Richard you have said in the past, the engine is already equipped with a 300 hp head. It needs more cam
What most people don't know is that most gains are made pocket porting and propper valve jobs. Preferably 5 angle rather than 3 or if you can't afford that, and you're doing it yourself, a 2" abrasive disk with say 9 vertical cuts will make a good flow transition. Watch his videos if you value torque. How many engine builders have you seen make 1.4+ ft. Lbs.per cube? That's over 540 ft. Lbs. from a 383 gen 1!
Id like to see you add ring gap to a stock lt shortblock and see how well it would hold up to boost. Would it be more durable like an ls with ring gap, or are the stock pistons/compression it's downfall for boost?
Is the tpi intake ported and port matched to the heads?
Could the airfoil make some difference at this point?
Will the 1.6 rockers raise the 450 lift to 480 lift!! But still needs more duration too. Also needs get compression up to 10 to 1 ! Thanks for sharing your videos!
wonder if a 2.5 collector extension would pic it up a set of 1.5 primary headers would help also im sure !
Huge change in chamber size! What's the diff in compression ratio? Run the smaller headers. Shave the heads (maybe they're not your heads or maybe thats a bunch to shave) or run a diff piston (if they're even available).
They take any 305 piston. They use a longer 5.94 rod to make up for the shorter stroke.
@@timothybayliss6680 I believe you have a point. Somebody must make a piston with a smaller dish or a slight dome
Maybe didn't add much, but it didn't take anything away with the larger heads. Would be interesting to see with some dome pistons and the lt1 aluminum heads.
I think you should have tried the COMP Cams Thumpr Hydraulic Roller Camshafts 08-601-8 Dur: 235 int./249 exh. Lift: 0.522 int./0.509 exh. lsa 107 it probably would have made 300 hp + and similarly torque. Always love your videos and the way you think out of the box.
a 235 cam is very big for a 4.3L
would have been nice to see that data@@richardholdener1727
Interesting, a few years ago when we were class racing I used to get a 50lb weight break for having iron heads. SBC, RHS 235's is what I had and it always ran great. They took the weight break away after one season, lol
The heads probably flow pretty good, it’s just a bad combo, the big chambers combined with the intake, just isn’t going to make a lot of power, stock ported heads with a duel plane may be the key
How did the aluminum heads change the timing curve?
I have a feeling to make NA power with the TPI you need more cam and a lot more compression ratio with the small headers.
Stock aluminum LTI heads might be the way to go for a little more port velocity.
I've had a low mile 4.3 L99 sitting on a shelf for years. I also have a 1993 M29 T56.
My 68 camaro convertible original 327/275 runs but is real tired. 4.3 M29 swap? Then Install a 3.55 8.5" 10 bolt from a previous camaro project.
I’m thinking the LT1 heads worked in spite of being a poor fit for the engine. The chamber size dropped compression from 9.5 or 10:1 down a full point to 8.5 or 9:1, not good for more cam. I seem to remember EQ made an iron head with 50cc chambers and Vortec ports-that would work. Add a cam with 0.550 lift or so to heads that flow in that same 250-ish CFM and the 4.3 might wake up! Of course, once you get a decent NA combo, boost it about 20 psi for some fun!
HEYYY RICHARD!
I would be curious to know the power increase if any going from the stock LT1 ram's horn style manifold's old manifold's to a set of 1 and 5/8 Long tube headers
12-15 likely
Wasn't there guy back in the day running a 4.3 L99 in a B-body in the Super Stock class? I wonder how many watts his mill was making and what his setup was.
I really would like to see a stock TPI manifold Vs a ported, and polished TPI intake manifold. Basically could you get decent gains from a P&P job?
ONLY MILD GAINS
@@richardholdener1727 Like 15 horsepower mild or less?
Great little engine. I think the 4.3 is just too small to take full advantage of the aluminum lt1 heads and the bore diameter is to small for the larger valves in the lt1 heads. A turbo will definitely wake it up
300 hp out of a 4.3 is not bad overall. Its still a mild combo!
But still has v8 350 fuel mileage
@@claypaul2012 Maybe in something heavy it would. In something light like a S10 it would get substantially better fuel economy. I had both a 305 and 350 in the same G20 van with a 700r4 and 3.08 gears. The 305 averaged 2-3 mpg better in mixed driving and got 23 mpg highway where the 350 got 19. Same 601 305 heads, same cam profile, same intake, same carb, same headers and exhaust. Just swapped the short blocks. The 305 had 200K on it and the 350 was a fresh build.
@@claypaul2012 You may be right, but I never really think about it. Richard's channel focuses on performance rather than mileage. I tend to think the same way.
how about a 3.9L Lincoln LS/ T-Bird
What effect does boost play with different intakes? Since wave tuning in the intake is so influential, does increasing the density of the air amplify that effect?
the intake is still effective at the same rpm under boost
ZZ-9 CAM TPI should shine on that little motor. carb/intake will always get it at peak hp but the TPI will destroy it in total torque production
Ok... factory specs say the L99 was approx. 9.9:1 with factory heads and gaskets etc. Going from 49 cc head to a 57.5 cc head drops compression to approximately 8.8:1 - figure 9.0 or less depending on head gasket thickness, deck clearance etc... Thats got to be worth 20+ hp at peak. Richard... what do you think?
1 full point is about 3-4%, say 9-12 hp on a 300-hp motor ish?????
@@richardholdener1727 ok... so if we were magically able to correct for the chamber size, we could say the ported heads are worth about 15 to 20 hp? Something like 6% to 8% hp based on this starting level... i.e. first cam. Hmm
@@MrScottt28 That magic compression correction will be the 1/2" stroke difference that makes the 265 a 305. Also going from a 5.94" rod to a 5.7" rod will slightly increase the dynamic compression ratio even if the static stayed the same.
@@richardholdener1727I thought for the drop from 49cc at (assuming) 9.5:1 compression to a 64cc camber and got into the high 7:1 range. I thought the loss of power got more drastic the lower the compression got so I figured a loss of 20hp from compression despite the gain from better flow and chamber design.
Ps. I'd still love to drop one of these rotating assemblies in a regular 305 block with the Trick Flow 175cc soper 23 heads for 305's. Would be about perfect for a daily driver g body lol and put the 4.3L badges on the 2" cowl hood 🤣🤣
The smaller headers have more velocity with the small displacement.
I think the heads are being shrouded by the small cylinder size.
Hey Richard how are you doing.?? I have a question for you or anyone who has the answers what do you suggest to be the best choice for HEADS for a non Vortex 305sbc.?? Thanks Chris Griffin and I love the videos keep it coming
There is twisted wedge 175 heads for 305 engines but why would you buy them? For the slightly more money then those heads you can buy a remanufactured l31 long block that comes with 4 bolt mains and a forged crank. They are cam springs and intake away from 450hp. You might be able to make more power with alloy heads but it will be less drivable with less torque.
If you got a 350 vortec from a junkyard and put cams springs and intake it would probably make more power than your 305 ever could.
SUPER 23 TFS
I would think a good head you might find out there used would be the L98 corvette aluminum head, as it was also sold through GM performance parts, it has screw in studs and guide plates, 1.94 1.50 valves and a 58cc chamber, its also angle plug(in case that matters in your app, idk) Now I realize this is a "350" head, so its up to you to find out if it will "work". I know I have personally seen a .30 305 with a .480 lift cam running a set that had just been milled to clean them up. So I guess what I'm saying is you might check this out. If somebody has had an issue with this they might offer some advice. Or flip the fuch out.;) good luck!
looking for the 180 degree "bundle of snakes" header tests
Would a tunnel ram bring add the runner length needed to gain the torque back?
Usually a tunnel ram makes more torque and power at almost every point on the dyno compared to a single plane, usually a dual plane beats it right at the bottom of the curve by a tiny bit. With this setup with nice flowing heads it might really make it rock.
My god, the amount of times your motors have been hampered by valve springs... do you only have one set of springs in that shop?
its only 450 lift plus another 30 from rockers puts it at 480 even stock sbc springs dont coil bind here have to check back his older vids to see what springs he has but im sure they were aftermarket ones so i dont know what the issue is here, stock lt4 springs can handle 530 lift and there like 40 bucks for a set
IT'S NOT LIFT-IT'S ROCKER WEIGHT AND RPM
How big were the ports and valves on the ported lt1 heads?
LT1
Ditch the seriously flow limited tpi and turbo it !! The camshafts are terrible by the way . Lobe separation is a mile from where is should be and is holding motor back .
What can you gain by using a longer rocker on the smaller cam?
WE DID THAT
Richard,
Super23 heads on this motor pls.
You are my hero
What was the actual difference in compression?
Do a cam with a smaller LSA like a 1:08 or 1:06 .
Yep like a 218/224 (or even 224/232) @ .050, .480 to .500 lift, 106 LSA and 102 ICL. Could keep the low-end torque using rhoads vmax lifters or even standard rhoads lifters too.
CHRIS HARD SELLING THOSE VR MAX
@@richardholdener1727 I have put them in 3 different engine combinations so far and they are like having two seperate cams in the same engine as far as manners and torque go. My latest 383 went from 195 psi to 210 psi at cranking speed. That earlier intake valve closing really traps extra cylinder pressure at low rpm. Idle vacuum is higher and the engine makes more torque off-idle. The first engine I put them in was a L30 305 Vortec with a 218/218, 106 LSA, 0.450 (with 1.6 rocker for ~.480 lift) flat tappet cam. Had it in a 99 Tahoe. The stock 1,600 rpm stall torque converter was a touch too tight for the cam. I had a melling lifter collapse on the fairly new build, maybe 5,000 miles on it. Against normal wisdom I switched only the lifters. Used the original style rhoads. Set them to 1/2 turn. Upon starting the truck for the first time, the idle immediately smoothed out, made 2-3 in/hg more vacuum and had alot better off-idle torque. It made enough of a difference under 4,000 rpm that I had to retune the fuel tables in the PCM.
@@richardholdener1727 I also suggested the lower lift for obvious potential valve to bore clearance issues with the larger intake valves in the LT1 heads. The valve does not come out of the chamber itself until about .470" and as you exceed 0.500" I feel you will run into a problem without notching the block deck.
Would you say that 220 degrees duratiuon is getting up there for an engine of this size? For the 4.8 LS, that's starting to get serious. This is an interesting experiment for sure, but to make decent numbers you either have to rev it to the moon or use a power adder. Or just skip it and use a larger engine.
What vehicles were offered with the 4.3 v-8 ?
caprice
Right on
1:25 V-tec?
waaaaBAAAAAAA
Have you made the new videos
Seems like everybody underestimates the power of iron heads yeah you can put aluminum heads and save some weight but this test right here proves that it is not big difference......
On a small engine like this with low airflow requirements
Port the iron heads and get a better cam. Also try the original intake.
Is there a such thing... is a turbo short tail 400 transmission or just a 400 short tail... I know this do not have nothing to do with the video.. I just had to ask I really need to know thanks
There’s a 3” tail meant for corvettes then There’s a 9” tail and a long 13” tail
so when you switch to aluminum heads you need to take advantage of the thermal characteristics of the aluminum and bump up the compression ratio. remember the easiest way to make a car quicker is to reduce weight
what was the flow #s on the stock L99 heads?
Love the LT1 content just wish it was more he 5.7
IT WILL BE
@@richardholdener1727 sweet got LT1 in my 51 Bel Air so looking forward to that info
compaired to the 4,3 v6(na) , the v6 has more torque down low and peak torque comes in at 3500 rpm instead of 4000 interesting stuff for low buck street builds
⭐️
Put the 4.3 49cc heads on a 5.7 LT1
When would a 4.3 make 500HP? 8000 RPM? If so, I doubt you needed the L1 heads and that is why you did not pick up much power.
The l99 heads flow about the same as l30 305 vortec heads and probably as good as the lt1 aluminum heads stock. When the cam only has 450 lift there isn't going to very much gained. These heads needed a good spring package and a 550 lift cam to take advantage of the porting
That seems like low cfm for ported heads. Surprised noone on here has a comment on regular flow from ported heads.
I've made a lot of power wit 1 5/8" headers.
On the "street" I've seen it a lot of times way to big of headers people use. 1 5/8 is plenty
Question that intake is that a vortec intake
no-it is for the LT1
@@richardholdener1727 so it won't work for the 5.7 lt1
Disco Disco
WHAAAAAAAA!
You'll never make a lot of top end power with the tuned port... the manifold runners are too small.
TOO LONG
@@richardholdener1727 No, Too small. The port volume in the cast intake section is too restrictive.
The length doesn't help either, but in this case it's beside the point.
@@michaelangelo8001 I've seen some guys data who have gone hog wild trying to make a tpi intake work. Even extrude honed a stock tpi intake only flows 225cfm. Sooner or later it's going to choke any set of heads. Tpi runners have an inconsistent runner cross section and reverse taper points, there is spots it's like an hour glass where the air charge has to change velocity a bunch. It's a really good idea that was horribly executed. If you had a modern nylon intake in the shape of a tpi with the same runner length it might work really well.
@@timothybayliss6680 I know. That's what I was trying to get across to Richard, but you can't tell him anything.
As you say, it would be a great manifold if it had been done correctly.
👍
Moon boost is what it needs
Seriously, 117 LSA? Do you want this thing to put out lawnmower torque. Even if you intend to boost this thing 112-113 should be max. Mr. Visard would say unshroud the valves & increase the exhaust valve size. Check out some of his videos, he's been watching yours.
I know David well-he is good people
So you have the weight, volume , expense of a larger engine. But not much reward? Does not even look different? So why? Maybe time better spent on the 292! That you might use??🤔
Why? For those who have 4.3L's and want to know what they can do with what the have.
@@madmod but you will not because it's a waist of time? The heads cost more than a "bigger" inch engine. With no gain? So ....
@@bryanfox6445 no ported lt1 heads do not cost more than swapping engines lol. While the heads themselves didn't do a lot on there own, its to be expected. The whole combo has to work together so all the that available airflow isnt even being used with .450 lift and hes still running stock rockers. You cant expect to just throw ported heads on a mild combo and expect miracles. The motor turned out nearly 300fwhp which is stout for such a small combo.
@@madmod really? I just purchased a "Complete" truck engine for $350 bucks! Some guy that watches to much "YT" and had to have a "LS" swap! May not happen for everyone but not unheard of?🤔🤔
@@bryanfox6445 You think hand ported lt1 heads cost anything near a used shortblock your skewed. I source used parts to sell and am well aware of how affordable both used engines and cylinder heads are. I source lq4, 5.3, and 4.8 engines all day for $285 as well as early gen 1 coyotes and 4v lincoln engines for $260. I can get these lt1 heads assembled for $100 dollars all day.
it only made 300 hp ... which means it only needs 150 cfm intake flow. bigger heads are a waste
Man my k24 all stock just with a tune makes same power lol
Fart can gives it an extra 100 HP?
@@TwoLotus2 🤣what's funny I have a 6.0 s10 stock an my civic beats it in the quarter
Need to quit messing around and tap into the flow capability of the heads. The cams are way too small....put some lift in that thing!
Low mean port velocity lazy port for that cam duration. That head will only flow at longer duration cams should of stayed with stock valve. Head only good at top end r.p.m lazy untill draw or air pressure or demand can fill port, chamber, cylinder to create more air velocity even chamber size to overlap play a big roll in filling the void and raming effect.lve been porting for 5 years sorry to say that head was not mathematical or camshaft events thought through.peace
MATHEMATICAL?
Yep engine maths.Bore stroke ratio, how much inch of valve feeds cylinder or bore area,how much valve diameter for bowl throat and cross section and port size for street or performance. valve to port length how 2 vavle or 4 vavle determine port length .vavle percentage to determine runner cross section. maths for intake runner length tuning for1,2,3,4 wave. thats with cam selection on top that and sit load other variables. Who show me that end more David vizard and John bactheal .peace
Not an equal comparison.
I bet that would be a great forced induction engine
First!
😂👆🏻
I think we learned that this engine can't make any power. Ever!
BOOST
It's getting pretty tiresome of watching theses videos that is suppose to be comparing A to B dyno runs, but you do an A to whatever you choose just to get a person to watch another video of where you you put said intake back on with A test dyno run just to get another watch on UA-cam!! If you don't do back to back direct comparisons, then there isn't a comparison.
SO WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE
@@richardholdener1727, First off...I do really enjoy most of your video's, and I am jealous that you get to play on the Dyno testing almost everything imagined!! Just more direct comparisons when testing camshafts, rocker ratios, changes in header sizes, etc. It's just a bummer to start a video to see a comparison of A camshaft and intake in a 350 sbc, then B camshaft gets tested in a 406 stroker with different heads and compression ratio (just a example), because we all know that cyl. heads, especially AFR's can make a big difference on most combinations, and compression makes more torque, so we're left trying to figure out is camshaft B actually better then A, or something else?? And I'm speaking for the dedicated gearheads with very little budget and limited parts, so we search for people like you, and Engine Masters to help us make those hard earned spending decisions! Keep up the great job!!
Way too many variables all at once.