Thank you for posting this video. I have spent decades telling people not to port heads, unless they really understand what they are doing. Few are willing to listen. I hope others see this, and seek help from an experienced, effective porter before modifying their heads.
Eric I love how you let us in one a few secrets and tell us what not to do. You give away alot more knowledge than most and that is respectable. I have a set of Dart Conquest heads that I bought 18 years ago on a SBC and they have never been touched. I will be sending them to you soon.
This goes to show that hogging out a head does not make it flow more like most would think. You have to know what your doing and make it for YOUR application as always great info
Hi Eric , love the videos and quality information.... however as a proud Kiwi I feel I have to correct one thing, these heads started out as "Pro-action" heads, designed and manufactured in New Zealand (not Australia) , then Pro-action merged with Topline & eventually RHS as part of the Comp group. I remember in the 90s when we had a new set of the 14° SBC cast iron heads to work with.... nothing would come close! Keep up the great work. Mike.
I thought they did the iron heads at the precision foundry in Auckland, then they disappeared when it shut down.... The aluminum, especially that new casting I don't think is cast over there but lol I doubt comp will tell you freely where.
I still use stones. I can get as many angles as I want. I control the seat width and location with ease. Most every seat done with a single point tool does not pass vacuum testing, even from some big name builders that I have checked.
Next question is, can you fix them back to where they flow well? Follow up would be, would it be worth the effort or would it be better to just start with an unmodified set?
@@my87z28 My dad followed Eric’s advice and put the back cut on valves. We got the cam back from iskycams that my dad wanted in it, and hopefully soon take it to a dyno..guy over in Toledo has dyno…not bad for swapping some other parts for these heads. I plan on getting some new RHS 230 next racing racing system when Trump gets re-elected lol
If this customer plans on keeping and using this head is next best move is to have you cut in a 2.10 valve at 50+ degrees. That's quite disappointing someone has prob 10-12 labor hrs into each head for less then stock results. Any less the 400ci would run better with cleaned up vortec.. Thanks for sharing.
Subtract corner radius area simple method. Radius ×radius×.215 × the number of corners with that same radius. If all 4 are the same then it would be × 4. If you have for example 2 the same but 2 are different than you would run the equation twice and add them. Then subtract from area.
If the “correct” taper was maintained from the start of the intake tract through to the bowl would that theoretically flow better? So the pushrod pinch is not the restriction like this but done properly.
Wonder what the actual benefits would be for the DIY porter who just removes casting flaws and knocks down the rough sand cast finish with an abrasive roll. Case of "20% effort which gives 80% results or not?
So the real question is, going up to a 2.10" intake valve (back-cut) and a good valve job, how much will that port improve? Granted, the pushrod punch is still to big but without welding it back up or filling it with epoxy you're kinda stuck with it.
@@WeingartnerRacing I agree. However most stuff is too big to begin with.. but if you end up with the throat as the smallest part I would think the engine would want run better everywhere regardless of the min csa to peak rpm calculator. Heads are just plain too big down there. But to think that removing area from the pinch is a bad move is just a bad way of looking at things. Ask anyone who’s won EMC if they run big throats and small pinches regardless of combination. Just because moving material from the pinch doesn’t make it flow more doesn’t result in a bad move. These are just my opinions based on what I’ve personally seen run on dyno’s I know are consistent.
I talked to you before. I am designing a head for a john deere pulling tractor. We had the head flowed that we are running and it flows 343 at .600. The tractor used to make more torque but the guy that worked on the head last opened it up a little and now I feel its too big. It does make more power but less torque. It has a 2.200 intake valve and the valve is shrouded really bad. We even had to machine a notch in the bore to make room for the valve. I want to make the new head have a smaller valve and also move the valve towards the center of the bore but we have to watch the valve doesnt hit the injector tip.. Do you know how big a valve I would need to flow around 300 maybe 325 at .600
A stock 5.7 hemi head will flow 315 with a 2.05 valve. Ported stock castings will go into the 340s with a stock valve. They have some of the best flow of any modern head, they really do well.
@@timothybayliss6680 This tractor has valves that are 90 degrees to the deck but I may be able to make the valves splayed atleast a little like a hemi. I would have to make new rockers and shafts. I was thinking of going with 2" valves and atleast trying it. I cast a couple 1 cyl aluminum heads to experiment with. You wouldnt have any pictures of these ports would you such as a silicon plug poured for the port.
@@timothybayliss6680 This tractor used to really have the torque. It had 2050 ft/lbs at 1800 rpm. we used to run 4 3/4 bore x 5" stroke. I made a billet crankshaft for it and now we have 4 9/16 bore with 5.400" stroke . After this it lost torque which I find od but we did go to a smaller piston and I think the head was opened up at the same time. Im hoping to run a smaller valve and help with shrouding and also keep the port as small as possible to bring back the torque.
@@TheJohndeere466 Hi James. I have ported the past 20 years mainly diesel heads for tractorpulling. The most overlooked part is the swirl the intake creates in the cylinder. If flow is increased say 20 percent but swirl decreased say 10 percent....very often no gain in power certainly not in lower revs. Gaining flow in diesel intake is easy by removing the helicoidal part in the port BUT that lowers swirl DRASTICALLY!!!! Also using angles instead of radius lowers swirl. No backangles lowers swirl AND flow. Using a valve so big it needs relieves in the cylinder bore DRASTICALLY lowers low lift flow AND swirl. To date I have never ever seen a head with such big valve and notch in cilinderbore arrangement outperforming a good ported diesel head. Even not in high revving diesel pro stock engines where with higher lift the disadvantage of such arrangement can be improved by the higher flow at higher lift. Also valve lift must match the swirl torque profile of the port. Example: in a pro stock head I make a bunch of flow but at expense of loss of swirl . But thats compensated by using the right amount of valve lift where swirl is reaching the right values. This means I dont look at flow to estimate a certain valve lift. But choose a higher valve lift way beyond max flow to reach the requested swirl torque. A swirl torque meter with honeycomb is needed. Not an impeller / blade type as then rpms of 6000 plus are reached and not 10000 percent accurate balance of blades is eating exponentially power and hugely troubling swirl rpm readings. Hope this helps .
@@Baard2000 Thanks for the great reply. This tractor runs in a class with a 2.7" compressor wheel rule. It will turn 5,000 rpm on the line but pulls down to around 3,500 going down the track. I was told by a guy with a prostock that for pulling you need no swirl, it just slows the air down but I always wondered if that is true. I was going to make a port going straight to the valve and not worry about swirl but maybe that would be a bad move. We are running a ported 8.1 John Deere head now but it has siamese ports. I was thinking that separating the intake ports would be a good thing.
Thank you for posting this video. I have spent decades telling people not to port heads, unless they really understand what they are doing. Few are willing to listen. I hope others see this, and seek help from an experienced, effective porter before modifying their heads.
Eric I love how you let us in one a few secrets and tell us what not to do. You give away alot more knowledge than most and that is respectable. I have a set of Dart Conquest heads that I bought 18 years ago on a SBC and they have never been touched. I will be sending them to you soon.
This goes to show that hogging out a head does not make it flow more like most would think. You have to know what your doing and make it for YOUR application as always great info
Hi Eric , love the videos and quality information.... however as a proud Kiwi I feel I have to correct one thing, these heads started out as "Pro-action" heads, designed and manufactured in New Zealand (not Australia) , then Pro-action merged with Topline & eventually RHS as part of the Comp group. I remember in the 90s when we had a new set of the 14° SBC cast iron heads to work with.... nothing would come close!
Keep up the great work. Mike.
You are correct. Sorry about that.
I thought they did the iron heads at the precision foundry in Auckland, then they disappeared when it shut down.... The aluminum, especially that new casting I don't think is cast over there but lol I doubt comp will tell you freely where.
Killer video, back cut on a 2.10 valve, valve job, and get rid of that ridge, and I bet the numbers look a much better
Thanks for the video, all the best to yous and your loved ones
Great info. It would be awesome if you did repair the valves job and put a bigger intake valve to compare!
Agreed, I'd like to see how much he could fix them.
Love your knowledge.. thx man
Thanks
Right on. The deck finish looks really rough on the older castings
I still use stones. I can get as many angles as I want. I control the seat width and location with ease. Most every seat done with a single point tool does not pass vacuum testing, even from some big name builders that I have checked.
Next question is, can you fix them back to where they flow well? Follow up would be, would it be worth the effort or would it be better to just start with an unmodified set?
Maybe but not ideal.
Youch! That hurts. Hopefully the guy got a deal on them used.
Yes we did. These heads in the video are older ones. Traded a guy some parts that he wanted and I took the heads..😂
@@2clicks2theright375 that’s good man. Are you thinking about having Eric do a valve job or running them as is?
@@my87z28 My dad followed Eric’s advice and put the back cut on valves. We got the cam back from iskycams that my dad wanted in it, and hopefully soon take it to a dyno..guy over in Toledo has dyno…not bad for swapping some other parts for these heads. I plan on getting some new RHS 230 next racing racing system when Trump gets re-elected lol
If this customer plans on keeping and using this head is next best move is to have you cut in a 2.10 valve at 50+ degrees.
That's quite disappointing someone has prob 10-12 labor hrs into each head for less then stock results. Any less the 400ci would run better with cleaned up vortec..
Thanks for sharing.
Subtract corner radius area simple method. Radius ×radius×.215 × the number of corners with that same radius. If all 4 are the same then it would be × 4. If you have for example 2 the same but 2 are different than you would run the equation twice and add them. Then subtract from area.
Amateur valve job your right i use stone but grind 4 angles on intake good for 25 cfm after hand blend
If the “correct” taper was maintained from the start of the intake tract through to the bowl would that theoretically flow better? So the pushrod pinch is not the restriction like this but done properly.
Wonder what the actual benefits would be for the DIY porter who just removes casting flaws and knocks down the rough sand cast finish with an abrasive roll. Case of "20% effort which gives 80% results or not?
I did a video doing just that.
Here is the video:
Does Smoothing Up An As Cast Head Improve Flow
ua-cam.com/video/ywU-lIxwbco/v-deo.html
@@WeingartnerRacing Thanks! Will check it out.
How many helicoils are in this thing? Or is it common practice?
For forced induction? Possibly. Not with the exhaust flow.
So the real question is, going up to a 2.10" intake valve (back-cut) and a good valve job, how much will that port improve?
Granted, the pushrod punch is still to big but without welding it back up or filling it with epoxy you're kinda stuck with it.
Doing that will help it greatly. Probably get to 230cfm at .400 316cfm@.600 and 335cfm at peak
Looks pretty shrouded as is.
I've got Honda 4cyl heads that flow more at .400 than that flows at .700
Please tell me the AFR 210cc heads I bought in the year 2000 aren't made of chinesium.
They are not.
@@WeingartnerRacing that's makes me happy. What's you basic rebuilding and porting cost on those? I mean when they get tired.
Larry, you should ask the question when they actually get tired.
@@taniaschiller9823 I'm taking them off soon. They might be tired now. I will test them this winter. Soon could be now.
Why would you want a pinch?
You don't but if you make the pinch the same as the throat CSA you usually end up with a port too big for most people.
@@WeingartnerRacing I agree. However most stuff is too big to begin with.. but if you end up with the throat as the smallest part I would think the engine would want run better everywhere regardless of the min csa to peak rpm calculator. Heads are just plain too big down there. But to think that removing area from the pinch is a bad move is just a bad way of looking at things. Ask anyone who’s won EMC if they run big throats and small pinches regardless of combination. Just because moving material from the pinch doesn’t make it flow more doesn’t result in a bad move. These are just my opinions based on what I’ve personally seen run on dyno’s I know are consistent.
I talked to you before. I am designing a head for a john deere pulling tractor. We had the head flowed that we are running and it flows 343 at .600. The tractor used to make more torque but the guy that worked on the head last opened it up a little and now I feel its too big. It does make more power but less torque. It has a 2.200 intake valve and the valve is shrouded really bad. We even had to machine a notch in the bore to make room for the valve. I want to make the new head have a smaller valve and also move the valve towards the center of the bore but we have to watch the valve doesnt hit the injector tip.. Do you know how big a valve I would need to flow around 300 maybe 325 at .600
A stock 5.7 hemi head will flow 315 with a 2.05 valve. Ported stock castings will go into the 340s with a stock valve. They have some of the best flow of any modern head, they really do well.
@@timothybayliss6680 This tractor has valves that are 90 degrees to the deck but I may be able to make the valves splayed atleast a little like a hemi. I would have to make new rockers and shafts.
I was thinking of going with 2" valves and atleast trying it. I cast a couple 1 cyl aluminum heads to experiment with.
You wouldnt have any pictures of these ports would you such as a silicon plug poured for the port.
@@timothybayliss6680 This tractor used to really have the torque. It had 2050 ft/lbs at 1800 rpm. we used to run 4 3/4 bore x 5" stroke. I made a billet crankshaft for it and now we have 4 9/16 bore with 5.400" stroke . After this it lost torque which I find od but we did go to a smaller piston and I think the head was opened up at the same time. Im hoping to run a smaller valve and help with shrouding and also keep the port as small as possible to bring back the torque.
@@TheJohndeere466 Hi James. I have ported the past 20 years mainly diesel heads for tractorpulling. The most overlooked part is the swirl the intake creates in the cylinder. If flow is increased say 20 percent but swirl decreased say 10 percent....very often no gain in power certainly not in lower revs.
Gaining flow in diesel intake is easy by removing the helicoidal part in the port BUT that lowers swirl DRASTICALLY!!!!
Also using angles instead of radius lowers swirl. No backangles lowers swirl AND flow.
Using a valve so big it needs relieves in the cylinder bore DRASTICALLY lowers low lift flow AND swirl. To date I have never ever seen a head with such big valve and notch in cilinderbore arrangement outperforming a good ported diesel head.
Even not in high revving diesel pro stock engines where with higher lift the disadvantage of such arrangement can be improved by the higher flow at higher lift.
Also valve lift must match the swirl torque profile of the port. Example: in a pro stock head I make a bunch of flow but at expense of loss of swirl . But thats compensated by using the right amount of valve lift where swirl is reaching the right values. This means I dont look at flow to estimate a certain valve lift. But choose a higher valve lift way beyond max flow to reach the requested swirl torque.
A swirl torque meter with honeycomb is needed. Not an impeller / blade type as then rpms of 6000 plus are reached and not 10000 percent accurate balance of blades is eating exponentially power and hugely troubling swirl rpm readings.
Hope this helps .
@@Baard2000 Thanks for the great reply. This tractor runs in a class with a 2.7" compressor wheel rule. It will turn 5,000 rpm on the line but pulls down to around 3,500 going down the track.
I was told by a guy with a prostock that for pulling you need no swirl, it just slows the air down but I always wondered if that is true.
I was going to make a port going straight to the valve and not worry about swirl but maybe that would be a bad move.
We are running a ported 8.1 John Deere head now but it has siamese ports. I was thinking that separating the intake ports would be a good thing.
Head for Bonneville running NA?
I don't know what they used the head for.