You have to understand the basis for this statement... Its blown way out of context today 40-50yrs later.... back in the 1970s all the high performance intakes were for rectangular ports.... oval port intakes at the time were stock GM or the Offy 360, Edelbrock F2B type junk. A big rectangular port Intake from the time like a TM2R or tunnel ram would indeed make more power on oval port heads. We are spolided today with the options we have compared to back then.... that said about 15yrs ago I built a very mild 496 9.5 Compression, 230@.050 hyd roller from Jones, Edelbrock E Street oval heads. Went in a C3 Corvette... only decent intake that will fit under the factory hood is the GM LS6 reproduction intake which is rectangular ports.... still makes over 500RWHP..... Absolutely it would have made more with a proper RPM airgap or Sealth oval port but it wouldn't fit without the L88 style hood and customer wanted what he wanted..
I've heard p[people call the rec port intake on oval heads a "speed secret" for years. Maybe my entire life of racing/hot-rodding. Thank you for executing to test this myth and show actual data.
Lots of my customers tried to claim that. Oval ports can really work Graph shows reverse reversion plate effect. I tried oval intake on rectangular heads but filled the floor of the heads Thanks for the update. Looking forward to your tests. I could make rectangular ports work on tall block blown offshore boat motors and other high rpm applications, for everything else that want mid range I stuck with oval ports. Even vetts with AT I did not have theh eads that are available today
Just saw this video. I have a 1969 model 427 that I bought out of a friends wrecked Vette. I built it many years ago, when I was young and poor. The only good intake I could find was a rectangular port Holley Strip Dominator. Helped that it had been polished too! ;) I put it on my oval port heads and it ran fine. I had nothing to compare it to though. And like billyj.williams2341 said, I did it out of neccessity, not because I had any idea about going faster. :)
I had never heard it done that way Eric. The trick was to put an oval port intake on square port heads. In fact I raced with a buddy that did just that who had a quick (for the time) 427 Chevelle street car that ran 10.60's NA with a setup like that. In fact it was Tony Bischoff who did his engines for him. I never did it myself however, I always ran the appropriate intake with the heads I was using.
@@sc358. Not in our case, just experimentation and looking for ways to make our street cars faster on motor. That was 35+ years ago. That particular 427 ran with iron square ports, solid flat tappet, and had a single plane oval port intake on it (can't remember which one) with a 4150 carb. It liked the oval port single plane on the square port heads. Bischoff did the engine way back then.
A few days late watching this but similar situation. I have Marine 454 in a 96 boat. It is a crate motor, all original. They use 156 peanut port heads and have it matched with a gm iron oval port intake circa 1970 lol. I will be swapping shortly to the peanut port specific intake from Weiand. Hoping at least to make the motor a little happier for future cam upgrades but secretly hoping for a noticeable pick up in power from correcting the missmatch.
Hi Eric I’m not sure if you were referring to my suggestion on the video you put out around 7 days ago. If it was my suggestion if you go back and read it was oval port intake on square port heads. Although I never tried it the idea came from the days of econo altered racing where guys on budgets supposedly found that combination provided anti reversion and higher intake velocity with big heads and big cams. Ordered the book and maybe sometime if you are Dyno testing again you could try it. Thanks for the work you do!
Back in the late 80’s my buddy had a 427 with rectangular port heads every time he dumped the clutch with slicks on it , it would fall on its face. The engine was a mismatch throw together Lol. Someone told us to try putting a oval port intake on it and it did wake it up quite a bit. I think it may have served as a Band-Aid maybe the wrong cam for the combination
I've never had anyone tell me that it'd make more power, just that it wouldn't hurt the power it can make. I do have a question though... did you round the sharp edges of the oval port heads to help smooth the air flow coming in, just like you do on the flow bench?
I had never heard the myth about square port manifolds on an ovel port head making more power. But I had heard that square port manifolds could be used on ovel port heads and that they would seal and not have vacuum leaks. I know this was done on a lot of second gen Camaro and big block swaps, since no aftermarket intake will clear a stock hood on a second gen Camaro. not even the Edelbrock torquer 2-0. All the factory low rise ovel port manifolds use the Q-Jet, with the exception of the odd ball 427 L68 tri-power oval port #3919850. Only Low-rise intake manifolds that fit under a stock hood, so the only options were the L78 402 and LS6 454 intake #3962569 and the later LS6-454 corvette intake #3967474 if you wanted a Holley carb. In the 70s smog era you could buy a strait 6 or base model Camaro and drop in big block dirt cheap and it was a massively popular swap. I even remember seeing Firebirds and Trans-Am's with 454's dropped in them. however, the high-rise intakes would not clear the factory hood. so people used the low-rise square port intake on oval port heads or they chopped a hole in the hood to clear the air cleaner. Tunnel Rams were with dual Holley's and velocity stacks were also very popular back then. if you lived somewhere that did outlaw things sticking through the hood. the more power myth probably comes from the fact most of these cars had base engines in them, and any big block is far better compared to a stock 307-SBC or a 250-L6. that would have been a night and day difference in performance.
I do think that the cubic inches and the newer heads is not a fair example to the old oval castings and old rectangle big block 396 427 454 GM stuff. More stroke and compression makes up for a lot of weaknesses. I’m more curious about stock parts and their differences but still a good test to show no surprise in my mind. Keep up the dyno stuff.
The only time i've heard of this done was when, Someone Was so. broke they didn't have the money to get their car Or truck on the road again and just happened to have a rectangle port intake. I hate to be Mr. I told you so but I called my shot 25 horses. Is what it would kill before that pull?
Dyno testing does not measure the transient response produced by the engine. Is it be possible that having a runner with what amounts to a ton of taper could allow the car to accelerate more quickly at the drag strip regardless of the dyno numbers?
hmmmm,when I worked at Mclaren Engines we did all the development for the upcoming 502 package. While flogging cams and other pieces of hardware,one of the Chevrolet engineers suggested oval port heads,and leave the square port manifold on,,,,,we kinda snickered,,,but hey,they are paying the bill. It not only was better ,,,was a LOT better,,,saw it with my own eyes
Was this with the chevy bowtie intake with the roval type openings? aka Edelbrock. Much smaller than a regular rectangular port intake. It is more like a square port intake.
@@ekitching factory winters casting,,,with the smaller truck style heads,,most dont realize the big port heads are much to big in a street type application,,,thats why the NHRA super stock guys fill them with brass to make them smaller
It was availability issue back in the day for people who had oval port heads....so you could put a dominator square port intake on and actually make more power..... If you put an oval Port intake on a square Port head you'll have a gasket leak..... If you want to know more about it ask Reher Morrison
Peanut port seems too small to match to a square intake port. But it will seal. However if i have oval port iron heads can i match the ports to the square intake ports? One guy said it has enough meat. I just dont want to ruin the heads. They are 781s
I'm surprised the peanut port heads did that well. I guess the nearly 500 cubes does help. With such a large mismatch I'm surprised the mixture didn't break up at high rpm.
I have actually never heard someone saying square port intake on oval port head makes more power than oval on top of oval. Now I have heard people do oval intakes on square ports heads but I have no idea what it did power good test it knew it would lost and honestly I thought it would loose more than that but hey 20hp lose is still pretty big
As a mopar guy we get to hear this same crap with 360 intakes like the performer RPM being good for 318 port heads or maxwedge intakes on standard port BB heads. Also they claim the opposite is good because it decreases reversion but they don't address the pressure wave bouncing off the closed intake valve getting dampened as it tries to go back up the port (this would apply as the wave goes either direction), I think that would be far more important except maybe the lowest of RPM where you never really drive anyhow.
@@sc358. I put a set of dart ci heads and wanted to see how oval port intake would work before I made it a rectangle port 396 +.060, dart 308 heads, team G intake
@@Gnif57 thanks for the reply. I'd assume at that displacement aftermarket oval port stuff would work pretty well (like AFR 265) Was curious if it was some mismatch OEM part numbers that worked well for a particular rule set
Not gonna lie, I’ve never heard that myth. My general rule of thumb, if you’re not going to port match, then make sure the head port is slightly larger than intake port, that way there’s not a massive rectangle ledge impeding flow.
there is a pressure wave going back up the intake tract after the intake valve closes, any mismatch will disrupt that pressure wave and reduce power. The bouncing pressure wave needs a nice clean path also.
Eric-are you sure 781 heads don't make 750 HP on Dunsworth"s "tight" dyno? I'am only 452 miles from Dunsworth's dyno.......................................
@@WeingartnerRacing Eric, I was a little surprised to see your comments in the video, especially when I see 600 plus HP S-10s that barely run 10s, and barometer set on the dyno @ 27.71 @ less than 1300 feet elevation, and tight dyno talk, you know I heard the same thing from the two dyno facilities I've tested at in Texas, I guess anythings possible, although I can't speak for the calibration of Dunsmore's dyno, I do know this: Peanut 454 Super Stocks make 720 HP with flat top pistons, a 2.070 intake valve, and Q-Jets, and run 8.70s in SS/GTA trim. 396/350 HP Super Stocks make 750 HP and run 9.20s @ 142 @ 3400 pounds. My mild 496s have been 9.20 @ 142+ @ 3600 pounds through mufflers on a 9 inch slick no wheelie bar. So I guess let me know what you have in mind, I think I'd want to go through the calibration process on the dyno. And to be clear I have no problem with you and have always thought you were solid, BUT I did cringe with your track testing of the S-10 and I definitely do not agree with your comments in this video above. The educator might get educated........let me know how you want to do this. BTW-I have a shop truck too.....
@@VORTECPRO I think you know part of the picture not the full picture. The s10 motor got dynod at Gaines grinding first there it made 650ish hp. It ran high tens. Not impressive and in all fairness I didn’t work the vehicle or drivetrain as much as the engine. Last year I pulled the motor out and redynod it at Dunsworth it made 580hp changing nothing. I will repeat what I have said before I have never had an engine I have dynod make less power on another dyno than Dunsworth. There is a first time for everything. We can schedule a dyno session and we can pull up the file from the bbc 496 and you can make some pulls. That would be the same calibrations. Then you can him hang weight and you can check things over and try again. If it makes the 750hp I will pay for the session if it doesn’t you pay for the session. My prediction is you make 680hp from information I have gathered. Either way I will film it put it up on the channel and if I’m wrong I don’t mind admitting it. We do have a track here that is nice and I would love to film you running your times here. Let me know you have my email. I have nothing against you and would love to be proved wrong on this.
@@VORTECPRO another thing you should know Dunsworth is in Enid, ok and if you check Vance Air Force base there they are 1312ft and 27.71 is not unbelievable there especially when it was cool while we were there since a front came through.
@@WeingartnerRacing I did watch your video on why the dyno doesn't match the track, I do understand whats going on here after watching the video. I also understand the SF dyno very well and how it works, and I did my home work last night, and i'am sure Dunsworth understands the dyno as well, and isn't trying to fool anyone with dishonest data. And please don't get me wrong, because I think you do a great job and are a very honest person, but it seems on the internet from my experience its alway the guy making claims of "tight" dyno's is always the guy who can't show dyno HP at the track, an example: Mark Whitener.. It is possible to have those kind of baro reading @ 1300 feet, But-he does have them a lot from the testing I've seen, we will see if the baro is in the 27.60s when I'am there, I'am sure it will be much higher. One other thing I want to mention, when you were on the dyno with your SBC and the inputs were in wrong, bore and stroke you should have caught that immediately, that would never happen at my place I have more respect for accurate data than that. I can tell you this, when I moved to Tx and didn't have my dyno running, both places I tested at were shocked, and one place I had to help set their dyno to read honest numbers. I will also will tell you two weeks ago when I tested one of my 650 HP 496s the spread from the observed HP to the corrected HP was 55 HP @ 790 feet elevation 29.17 baro. SO HERE IS WHAT I NEED TO KNOW: Are you saying 781 heads will not make 750 HP on Dunsmore dyno, I need to be clear about this. 750 HP is 1.51 HP per inch, I do not have any 496s right now, I do have a cast crank 467 with a dual plane and 781 heads, and I will make the claim it will rape that 680 HP 496 you tested and make over 700 HP on Dunsmore's dyno, with the proper baro setting and inertia factor setting. And just remember, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't be done. We can have some fun with this and by al means film it
Just one more myth busted. Seems there is no shortage of bs stories out there. Most of the olden day ones are usually complete B.S. Great video, good content. The Dyno sets things right. Ultimately the time slips from the drag strip tell the whole packaged story. 👍
Thank you, THANK you , THANK YOU! I have argued with so many keyboard cowboys that it simply cannot work! Common sense tells you that! So sick of how their car picked up such and such mph or et! Thanks Eric.
I think the myth stems from guys using a stock qjet oval port intake and comparing that to a single plane on something with a solid cam. Almost anything will be better than a stocker
I used oval port heads for the test. The heads used were the Brodix Race Rite 270. As I said in the video I use the peanut ports for demonstration because the Brodix heads were still on the motor.
I just paid $500 for a standard bore 454 with peanut port heads. The engine needs a refresh but, that price is a little better than average. BBC prices are definitely going up. Also, don't toss the peanut heads. They're great for making tons of torque in a heavy vehicle. Perfect for burnouts or stoplight to stoplight racing.
You have to understand the basis for this statement... Its blown way out of context today 40-50yrs later.... back in the 1970s all the high performance intakes were for rectangular ports.... oval port intakes at the time were stock GM or the Offy 360, Edelbrock F2B type junk. A big rectangular port Intake from the time like a TM2R or tunnel ram would indeed make more power on oval port heads. We are spolided today with the options we have compared to back then.... that said about 15yrs ago I built a very mild 496 9.5 Compression, 230@.050 hyd roller from Jones, Edelbrock E Street oval heads. Went in a C3 Corvette... only decent intake that will fit under the factory hood is the GM LS6 reproduction intake which is rectangular ports.... still makes over 500RWHP..... Absolutely it would have made more with a proper RPM airgap or Sealth oval port but it wouldn't fit without the L88 style hood and customer wanted what he wanted..
I've heard p[people call the rec port intake on oval heads a "speed secret" for years. Maybe my entire life of racing/hot-rodding. Thank you for executing to test this myth and show actual data.
I have heard that all my life and I am 65 years old. Thanks for the video.
Lots of my customers tried to claim that. Oval ports can really work Graph shows reverse reversion plate effect. I tried oval intake on rectangular heads but filled the floor of the heads Thanks for the update. Looking forward to your tests. I could make rectangular ports work on tall block blown offshore boat motors and other high rpm applications, for everything else that want mid range I stuck with oval ports. Even vetts with AT I did not have theh eads that are available today
Just saw this video. I have a 1969 model 427 that I bought out of a friends wrecked Vette. I built it many years ago, when I was young and poor. The only good intake I could find was a rectangular port Holley Strip Dominator. Helped that it had been polished too! ;) I put it on my oval port heads and it ran fine. I had nothing to compare it to though. And like billyj.williams2341 said, I did it out of neccessity, not because I had any idea about going faster. :)
I agree! If you do not have an oval port intake at least can use a square port intake to get it running.
How about on the old Oval Port Heads, not on those Newer Peanut Port heads?
I heard this... and totally curious. I haven't seen another video showing the results until your. Thank you
I actually thought it would be even worse.
I had never heard it done that way Eric. The trick was to put an oval port intake on square port heads. In fact I raced with a buddy that did just that who had a quick (for the time) 427 Chevelle street car that ran 10.60's NA with a setup like that. In fact it was Tony Bischoff who did his engines for him. I never did it myself however, I always ran the appropriate intake with the heads I was using.
So what's the deal here? Is that some class rule where ur not allowed to port and it just happens to be the best combination?
@@sc358. Not in our case, just experimentation and looking for ways to make our street cars faster on motor. That was 35+ years ago. That particular 427 ran with iron square ports, solid flat tappet, and had a single plane oval port intake on it (can't remember which one) with a 4150 carb. It liked the oval port single plane on the square port heads. Bischoff did the engine way back then.
A few days late watching this but similar situation. I have Marine 454 in a 96 boat. It is a crate motor, all original. They use 156 peanut port heads and have it matched with a gm iron oval port intake circa 1970 lol. I will be swapping shortly to the peanut port specific intake from Weiand. Hoping at least to make the motor a little happier for future cam upgrades but secretly hoping for a noticeable pick up in power from correcting the missmatch.
Iv heard it often and they say more power .. so glad you proved them wrong
Hi Eric I’m not sure if you were referring to my suggestion on the video you put out around 7 days ago. If it was my suggestion if you go back and read it was oval port intake on square port heads. Although I never tried it the idea came from the days of econo altered racing where guys on budgets supposedly found that combination provided anti reversion and higher intake velocity with big heads and big cams.
Ordered the book and maybe sometime if you are Dyno testing again you could try it.
Thanks for the work you do!
Back in the late 80’s my buddy had a 427 with rectangular port heads every time he dumped the clutch with slicks on it , it would fall on its face. The engine was a mismatch throw together Lol. Someone told us to try putting a oval port intake on it and it did wake it up quite a bit. I think it may have served as a Band-Aid maybe the wrong cam for the combination
It helps on some combinations. Usually a crutch for wrong csa
I've never had anyone tell me that it'd make more power, just that it wouldn't hurt the power it can make.
I do have a question though... did you round the sharp edges of the oval port heads to help smooth the air flow coming in, just like you do on the flow bench?
Yes Eric, I have heard of that before over the years
Bro I did it in my personal truck
468 9:1 comp. Vortec heads airgap intake switched to rec port single 4 tunnel ram and picked up amazing torque
I was told mercury marine did it from the factory
#MeToo
Yep, on ford 460 engines. They used cobra jet intakes on standard port heads.
@@randybailey3904 Yep I have seen that on industral engines for years
I had never heard the myth about square port manifolds on an ovel port head making more power. But I had heard that square port manifolds could be used on ovel port heads and that they would seal and not have vacuum leaks. I know this was done on a lot of second gen Camaro and big block swaps, since no aftermarket intake will clear a stock hood on a second gen Camaro. not even the Edelbrock torquer 2-0. All the factory low rise ovel port manifolds use the Q-Jet, with the exception of the odd ball 427 L68 tri-power oval port #3919850. Only Low-rise intake manifolds that fit under a stock hood, so the only options were the L78 402 and LS6 454 intake #3962569 and the later LS6-454 corvette intake #3967474 if you wanted a Holley carb. In the 70s smog era you could buy a strait 6 or base model Camaro and drop in big block dirt cheap and it was a massively popular swap. I even remember seeing Firebirds and Trans-Am's with 454's dropped in them. however, the high-rise intakes would not clear the factory hood. so people used the low-rise square port intake on oval port heads or they chopped a hole in the hood to clear the air cleaner. Tunnel Rams were with dual Holley's and velocity stacks were also very popular back then. if you lived somewhere that did outlaw things sticking through the hood. the more power myth probably comes from the fact most of these cars had base engines in them, and any big block is far better compared to a stock 307-SBC or a 250-L6. that would have been a night and day difference in performance.
Did you play with timing and fuel ?
I do think that the cubic inches and the newer heads is not a fair example to the old oval castings and old rectangle big block 396 427 454 GM stuff. More stroke and compression makes up for a lot of weaknesses. I’m more curious about stock parts and their differences but still a good test to show no surprise in my mind. Keep up the dyno stuff.
The only time i've heard of this done was when, Someone Was so. broke they didn't have the money to get their car Or truck on the road again and just happened to have a rectangle port intake. I hate to be Mr. I told you so but I called my shot 25 horses. Is what it would kill before that pull?
Yep heard it before, never figured it would work. Never tried it. I wonder on the other way tho 🤔
Dyno testing does not measure the transient response produced by the engine. Is it be possible that having a runner with what amounts to a ton of taper could allow the car to accelerate more quickly at the drag strip regardless of the dyno numbers?
hmmmm,when I worked at Mclaren Engines we did all the development for the upcoming 502 package. While flogging cams and other pieces of hardware,one of the Chevrolet engineers suggested oval port heads,and leave the square port manifold on,,,,,we kinda snickered,,,but hey,they are paying the bill. It not only was better ,,,was a LOT better,,,saw it with my own eyes
Was this with the chevy bowtie intake with the roval type openings? aka Edelbrock. Much smaller than a regular rectangular port intake. It is more like a square port intake.
@@ekitching factory winters casting,,,with the smaller truck style heads,,most dont realize the big port heads are much to big in a street type application,,,thats why the NHRA super stock guys fill them with brass to make them smaller
@@TomSmith-cv8hk big port manifold on small port heads
It was availability issue back in the day for people who had oval port heads....so you could put a dominator square port intake on and actually make more power..... If you put an oval Port intake on a square Port head you'll have a gasket leak..... If you want to know more about it ask Reher Morrison
Thanks again dude!
All I've ever heard about this, is it will run.
Peanut port seems too small to match to a square intake port. But it will seal. However if i have oval port iron heads can i match the ports to the square intake ports? One guy said it has enough meat. I just dont want to ruin the heads. They are 781s
Don’t do it
I'm surprised the peanut port heads did that well. I guess the nearly 500 cubes does help. With such a large mismatch I'm surprised the mixture didn't break up at high rpm.
It was with Brodix RR 270 not peanut port.
I have actually never heard someone saying square port intake on oval port head makes more power than oval on top of oval. Now I have heard people do oval intakes on square ports heads but I have no idea what it did power good test it knew it would lost and honestly I thought it would loose more than that but hey 20hp lose is still pretty big
Heard its worth a few hp. Heard oval port on rectangular heads hurts power. Of course every instance is different.
It won’t make more power, but as I’ve seen from other places, it doesn’t make less however that was on engines baking alot less power
Good busting that old stinky myth. Now there gonna be some old armchair saying he raced with a triangle port intake mated to a tetrahedral head ;)
HTG, the was an engine builder in my town (35 years ago) who ran this combo, one one my friends copied. Could never understand this.
As a mopar guy we get to hear this same crap with 360 intakes like the performer RPM being good for 318 port heads or maxwedge intakes on standard port BB heads. Also they claim the opposite is good because it decreases reversion but they don't address the pressure wave bouncing off the closed intake valve getting dampened as it tries to go back up the port (this would apply as the wave goes either direction), I think that would be far more important except maybe the lowest of RPM where you never really drive anyhow.
My BBC has the opposite, oval port intake with rectangle port heads
Why? And what heads & intake?
@@sc358. I put a set of dart ci heads and wanted to see how oval port intake would work before I made it a rectangle port
396 +.060, dart 308 heads, team G intake
@@Gnif57 thanks for the reply.
I'd assume at that displacement aftermarket oval port stuff would work pretty well (like AFR 265)
Was curious if it was some mismatch OEM part numbers that worked well for a particular rule set
What gasket did you used. I used a aluminum oval port intake on rectangular head , I could not find a gasket thick enough too close the gap.
@@angry3055 Fel-Pro 1275-5
The team g can be ported to a rectangle port so it might depend on your intake mounting flange
I have heard it, but the other way around. oval intake on rec port head.
Not gonna lie, I’ve never heard that myth. My general rule of thumb, if you’re not going to port match, then make sure the head port is slightly larger than intake port, that way there’s not a massive rectangle ledge impeding flow.
there is a pressure wave going back up the intake tract after the intake valve closes, any mismatch will disrupt that pressure wave and reduce power. The bouncing pressure wave needs a nice clean path also.
Eric-are you sure 781 heads don't make 750 HP on Dunsworth"s "tight" dyno? I'am only 452 miles from Dunsworth's dyno.......................................
I will take that bet. I can meet you there.
@@WeingartnerRacing Eric, I was a little surprised to see your comments in the video, especially when I see 600 plus HP S-10s that barely run 10s, and barometer set on the dyno @ 27.71 @ less than 1300 feet elevation, and tight dyno talk, you know I heard the same thing from the two dyno facilities I've tested at in Texas, I guess anythings possible, although I can't speak for the calibration of Dunsmore's dyno, I do know this: Peanut 454 Super Stocks make 720 HP with flat top pistons, a 2.070 intake valve, and Q-Jets, and run 8.70s in SS/GTA trim. 396/350 HP Super Stocks make 750 HP and run 9.20s @ 142 @ 3400 pounds. My mild 496s have been 9.20 @ 142+ @ 3600 pounds through mufflers on a 9 inch slick no wheelie bar. So I guess let me know what you have in mind, I think I'd want to go through the calibration process on the dyno. And to be clear I have no problem with you and have always thought you were solid, BUT I did cringe with your track testing of the S-10 and I definitely do not agree with your comments in this video above. The educator might get educated........let me know how you want to do this. BTW-I have a shop truck too.....
@@VORTECPRO I think you know part of the picture not the full picture. The s10 motor got dynod at Gaines grinding first there it made 650ish hp. It ran high tens. Not impressive and in all fairness I didn’t work the vehicle or drivetrain as much as the engine. Last year I pulled the motor out and redynod it at Dunsworth it made 580hp changing nothing. I will repeat what I have said before I have never had an engine I have dynod make less power on another dyno than Dunsworth. There is a first time for everything. We can schedule a dyno session and we can pull up the file from the bbc 496 and you can make some pulls. That would be the same calibrations. Then you can him hang weight and you can check things over and try again. If it makes the 750hp I will pay for the session if it doesn’t you pay for the session. My prediction is you make 680hp from information I have gathered. Either way I will film it put it up on the channel and if I’m wrong I don’t mind admitting it. We do have a track here that is nice and I would love to film you running your times here. Let me know you have my email. I have nothing against you and would love to be proved wrong on this.
@@VORTECPRO another thing you should know Dunsworth is in Enid, ok and if you check Vance Air Force base there they are 1312ft and 27.71 is not unbelievable there especially when it was cool while we were there since a front came through.
@@WeingartnerRacing I did watch your video on why the dyno doesn't match the track, I do understand whats going on here after watching the video. I also understand the SF dyno very well and how it works, and I did my home work last night, and i'am sure Dunsworth understands the dyno as well, and isn't trying to fool anyone with dishonest data. And please don't get me wrong, because I think you do a great job and are a very honest person, but it seems on the internet from my experience its alway the guy making claims of "tight" dyno's is always the guy who can't show dyno HP at the track, an example: Mark Whitener.. It is possible to have those kind of baro reading @ 1300 feet, But-he does have them a lot from the testing I've seen, we will see if the baro is in the 27.60s when I'am there, I'am sure it will be much higher. One other thing I want to mention, when you were on the dyno with your SBC and the inputs were in wrong, bore and stroke you should have caught that immediately, that would never happen at my place I have more respect for accurate data than that. I can tell you this, when I moved to Tx and didn't have my dyno running, both places I tested at were shocked, and one place I had to help set their dyno to read honest numbers. I will also will tell you two weeks ago when I tested one of my 650 HP 496s the spread from the observed HP to the corrected HP was 55 HP @ 790 feet elevation 29.17 baro. SO HERE IS WHAT I NEED TO KNOW: Are you saying 781 heads will not make 750 HP on Dunsmore dyno, I need to be clear about this. 750 HP is 1.51 HP per inch, I do not have any 496s right now, I do have a cast crank 467 with a dual plane and 781 heads, and I will make the claim it will rape that 680 HP 496 you tested and make over 700 HP on Dunsmore's dyno, with the proper baro setting and inertia factor setting. And just remember, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it can't be done. We can have some fun with this and by al means film it
The way I heard it was it would work and not lose power, not that it would make more power.
Heard of this rumor. In short I’ve always thought it was BS. Usually it was a case of the intake comparison wasn’t apples to apples.
Just one more myth busted. Seems there is no shortage of bs stories out there. Most of the olden day ones are usually complete B.S. Great video, good content. The Dyno sets things right. Ultimately the time slips from the drag strip tell the whole packaged story. 👍
I have heard it first hand from some very well know engine builders.
We always did it the opposite, oval on rectangle head.
I've only read that port matching doesnt matter, you just proved otherwise
Yheeep... The Ex's Crazy Uncle Mike used to say that... Up here in Nor-Idaho...
Thank you, THANK you , THANK YOU! I have argued with so many keyboard cowboys that it simply cannot work! Common sense tells you that! So sick of how their car picked up such and such mph or et! Thanks Eric.
I’m 70 and yes I’ve heard of it before 😂
I think the myth stems from guys using a stock qjet oval port intake and comparing that to a single plane on something with a solid cam. Almost anything will be better than a stocker
Yes heard it back in high school 69
I have heard a lot of crazy stuff but nobody ever tried to tell me that would work.
Instead of using peanut ports use oval port heads!
I used oval port heads for the test. The heads used were the Brodix Race Rite 270. As I said in the video I use the peanut ports for demonstration because the Brodix heads were still on the motor.
@@WeingartnerRacing If people would only listen. They are already thinking ahead of what they think you might say
I’ve heard it. Not to long ago either. Didn’t argue their claim either. Waste of my time
Hahaha! Those are dog,,, bench racing numbers for sure but 600+ hp in the street is not easy to hook-up.even from a roll.
Wish i could build a big block on the cheap but dammit at what the facebook crackheads want for anything big block related
I just paid $500 for a standard bore 454 with peanut port heads. The engine needs a refresh but, that price is a little better than average. BBC prices are definitely going up.
Also, don't toss the peanut heads. They're great for making tons of torque in a heavy vehicle. Perfect for burnouts or stoplight to stoplight racing.
Square peg in round hole
Common sense ain't that Common
have heard the myth many times....