Yes I did and congrats in your airflow achievements! But like you said, those little variations is what make the difference between your hand port and my CNC. The little variations of hand ported bowls are astronomical compared to CNC ported bowls, You have 6 different ports I have 6 equals ports.
Good job!
iirc the variations were fairly minimal, like 5-6 CFM difference. But like you said, CNC gets them all equal, and they look pretty. So good job to you! Apologies for being critical about your CNC work, I just can jusitify 700 bucks for a set of heads that only flow moderatly better than untouched heads. but then again, theres no aftermarket for the irons.
Free market-if your product is better or more preferable than the market will adjust or the vendor will. I do the same thing,build for personal and sell when I want. But if I can take someone else's idea and make it better,it doesn't detract from them. They are only selling thier improvements on a previous product as well.
Actually, I thought Francis, due to medical conditions was not making any products anymore... ...I might be in the market for another set of headers within the next year...preferably pre-JETT-coated...
I'm pretty sure Trueleo is still on hiatus. Besides, competition is a good thing. It drives people to improve.
Yep, when someone has the market cornered, they dictate and inflate prices.
La Fiera, if you want take a look at powerheads.com. They find SBF E7 heads and CNC port them, add some goodies like SS valves and other hardware, and turn them around for 750ish. That was a few years ago, though. But those are V8 heads, likely requiring more window watching time, and more hardware for around the same price you offered. Something to think about.
Scroll down and look at the CNC port work pictures.
My Super Stock heads are $700 + shipping and this is what you get (exchange program only). Super Stock Head $700 -CNC port work -3 angle valve job -Spring seat machined to accept SBC springs (ANY spring available for SBC you can use) -Shaved to achieve the highest compression without compromising the geometry. -Shroud combustion chamber to eliminate hot spots.
Flow Data @ 28 inH2o Intake 200=59 300=113 400=173 500=182
Exhaust 200=37 300=132 400=130 500=133
Race Head -Same as the Super Stock but with: 1.85 intake & 1.50 exhaust valves (Don't know how much this will be yet) Flow Data will be available soon!
I'm in the process of building a 3.4 but unlike yours I'm using a solid lifter flat tappet camshaft.
Oh im sorry I didnt mean to get in the way of you pitching your CNC heads buddy. And if you're not sure...Yes, this is Lou's thread, hence the "/hijack" in my previous post.
So where were we?
.....Oh yes, back on point.....
quote
Actually, I thought Francis, due to medical conditions was not making any products anymore... ...I might be in the market for another set of headers within the next year...preferably pre-JETT-coated...
No big deal. I am waiting for an update to see if the new hub has arrived.
If these heads are a performance increase, then great. However, I believe to you should alter your program to leave the vane in. If you look on the top wall of the intake ports, you'll see a crevice that compensates for that vane and directs air to the front facing part of the valve where as the vane directs air around the valve stem to the sides and back. This is what balances the pressure around the valve.
It seems that not much improvement was done to the exhaust...or am I wrong?
Update: Collision center has received a UPS update that it is en-route. Should show up tomorrow.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 04-30-2013).]
Originally posted by lou_dias: Let me assure you that even 2.8's would benefit from exhaust porting. Stock exhaust valve is 1.42". It is under-served by 3/4" or 7/8" ports...
When I saw the flow numbers, my first thought was "that's gonna need a really exhaust-heavy camshaft!" A head with great intake flow and weak exhaust flow isn't going to scavenge well.
You guys got a point but bigger is not always better. There's got to be a balance between the intake and exhaust velocity. The port size will dictate at what RPM rate the velocity is optimum for that specific RPM.
The faster the exhaust exits, the incoming air will travel at a faster rate and the opposite happens when the tables are turned. The theory behind this is to bring in large amounts of air volume at hi velocity. That is why the components of the intake side (TB, Plenum, etc) are out of proportion compared to the exhaust. Now, being that these heads where going to be on a 2.8 I opted for the smaller exhaust port.
For the 3.4 I'm building a totally different head, of course with a little bigger exhaust port. Just look at my dyno sheet and look where the power is compared to yours, everything is just a balancing act. http://www.oil-endurance-pr...icion/pontiac-fiero/
You guys got a point but bigger is not always better. There's got to be a balance between the intake and exhaust velocity. The port size will dictate at what RPM rate the velocity is optimum for that specific RPM.
The faster the exhaust exits, the incoming air will travel at a faster rate and the opposite happens when the tables are turned. The theory behind this is to bring in large amounts of air volume at hi velocity. That is why the components of the intake side (TB, Plenum, etc) are out of proportion compared to the exhaust. Now, being that these heads where going to be on a 2.8 I opted for the smaller exhaust port.
For the 3.4 I'm building a totally different head, of course with a little bigger exhaust port. Just look at my dyno sheet and look where the power is compared to yours, everything is just a balancing act. http://www.oil-endurance-pr...icion/pontiac-fiero/
Can't wait to see more videos of you racing!
Cheers
Flow is about balance and scavenging. Oreif's heads flowed more than Falconer on the intake side but less/stock on the exhaust and his motors made 200rwhp. Falconer, while having a poorer intake thru-put (and much poorer than yours) had better exhaust thru-put and made 275+ hp. This is what is amusing about heads and flow #'s 158cfm/port is enough to flow 275+hp...yet we have heads with more cfm on the intake making less HP in both...this extends to AL heads as well...which is why I've always said the heads aren't necessarily the primary restriction on Fiero engines. Typically it's the intake system and exhaust system that fails at supplying(or allowing air to leave) the heads with enough air flow.
Originally posted by Will: That's a pretty good 4.9 dyno. My stock Northstar beat that by 1 ftlb and 70 HP.
Yeah, we both know it's crap (yet amazingly close to by 3.400 car). That was with a stickpony chip (which is just an ADS chip) ... I didn't get the 4.9 swap for horsepower. NJD85GT send me a much better tune and it runs a lot better now but now I get clutch slip at 4200+... Its just my daily driver now since my stock 88 Formula developed a crack in the cross-over.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-05-2013).]
Yeah, we both know it's crap (yet amazingly close to by 3.400 car). That was with a stickpony chip (which is just an ADS chip) ... I didn't get the 4.9 swap for horsepower. NJD85GT send me a much better tune and it runs a lot better now but now I get clutch slip at 4200+... Its just my daily driver now since my stock 88 Formula developed a crack in the cross-over.
if your "3400 car" is the car this thread is about, it's not a 3400 anymore, merely a roller cam 3.4.
Yes but mine is bored .020" over so it is a true 3.40000000000 ;-)
A stock 3.4/3400 uses a 3.62" bore. I'm at 3.64" and a 3500 LX9 uses a 3.7" bore. If I ever rebuild this block (again) maybe I'll just have it bored to that. They had the car running yesterday and were preparing the bill. Not looking forward to the bill but at least I'll have the car tonight - FINALLY!
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-09-2013).]
Yes, and I just ordered 2 17x9 wheels from Summit and 2 P275/35ZR-17 Hoosier R6 tires. Gonna use those in the rear to get my rpm up on the track and move the 40's to the front with lower tire pressure.
And lucky me I found my chip burner in the car ... I hadn't been in the car since late Sept/early Oct ... I need to add timing back below 3000RPM, it's a dog below that currently.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-10-2013).]
Yes but mine is bored .020" over so it is a true 3.40000000000 ;-)
A stock 3.4/3400 uses a 3.62" bore. I'm at 3.64" and a 3500 LX9 uses a 3.7" bore. If I ever rebuild this block (again) maybe I'll just have it bored to that.
I didn't think the 3400 block could go that big safely. The non-VVT 3500 uses a 94mm bore, which is nearly .080 over stock for a 3400... that's a pretty aggressive overbore.
OTOH, a .036 overbore for the 3500 gets it to the 305 Chevy bore size and opens up a large number of possibilities for custom pistons.
I didn't think the 3400 block could go that big safely. The non-VVT 3500 uses a 94mm bore, which is nearly .080 over stock for a 3400... that's a pretty aggressive overbore.
OTOH, a .036 overbore for the 3500 gets it to the 305 Chevy bore size and opens up a large number of possibilities for custom pistons.
If the cranks are the same then the walls between the cylinders can't change, correct? Well, I suppose I mean the cylinder spacing within the block. For the 3500 to have thicker inner walls, it would need to be a longer block and different crank. So if the inside of the block is the same, then it seems to me that a 3400 block can be bored pretty far. In reality my next rebuild would only go to .040" over but it still seems possible...
The cranks are not the same, what are you talking about? The LX9 cylinders are also positioned slightly different in the block. That was the 3900... sorry...
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 05-10-2013).]
The cranks are not the same, what are you talking about? The LX9 cylinders are also positioned slightly different in the block.
Well that explains that...or are you confusing the VVT 3500 that is based off the 3900? Or is all 2004+ 3100/3400/3500's a different crank casting all together?
Who sells an under-drive pulley for Fiero engines?
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 05-10-2013).]
If the cranks are the same then the walls between the cylinders can't change, correct? Well, I suppose I mean the cylinder spacing within the block. For the 3500 to have thicker inner walls, it would need to be a longer block and different crank. So if the inside of the block is the same, then it seems to me that a 3400 block can be bored pretty far. In reality my next rebuild would only go to .040" over but it still seems possible...
Negative, ghost rider. The V6's use NON-siamesed bores. There's water between the bore walls. That's what allowed GM to go to 99mm in the VVT 3500 and 3900. The bore spacing did *NOT* change... the bores just moved "downhill" in order to maintain their clearance to the camshaft. For the 99mm blocks, the bore centerlines no longer intersect the crank centerline.
Anyway, just like any other engine, if you bore it too big, the walls get too thin *somewhere* and you risk cracking a bore and letting coolant into your chamber or your oil pan. Either way, it's not favorable.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 05-10-2013).]
Negative, ghost rider. The V6's use NON-siamesed bores. There's water between the bore walls. That's what allowed GM to go to 99mm in the VVT 3500 and 3900. The bore spacing did *NOT* change... the bores just moved "downhill" in order to maintain their clearance to the camshaft. For the 99mm blocks, the bore centerlines no longer intersect the crank centerline.
Anyway, just like any other engine, if you bore it too big, the walls get too thin *somewhere* and you risk cracking a bore and letting coolant into your chamber or your oil pan. Either way, it's not favorable.
But what about reaching the 94mm on the LX9 3500 block with the LA1 3400 block? It's still a huge over bore, but I think that is what he meant. There is no way to reach the specs of the VVT engines with either the LA1 or LX9 block.
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 05-13-2013).]
