Trolls... with real flow data and power output numbers...
With all your pontificating about the capabilities of the iron heads all we have for data is the data for Will's Fiero pro ported iron heads, Francis T's stock chart and:
quote
My machinist did an amazing job. He ported and polished as deep as possible only backing off where he thought there might be a coolant passage near by.
Do it up! I'll be interested to see the results, if somehow your machinist found a way get 80CFM more flow over a stock GEN1 head to match a stock 3500 head, I will be duly impressed.
Mention of GEN2 aluminum heads in relation to performance comparisons are always funny though:
quote
Chevrolet made a pace car out of the Beretta. This car of course had to be special and so did the engine. The traditional cast iron block was first tossed in favor of GM's high performance V6/60-degree aluminum bow tie block. With the block punched out to 3.4 liters, a compression ratio of 10.7:1 and filled with GM and aftermarket goodies, like a Crower solid lifter camshaft with .459-inch max intake lift and .484-inch exhaust lift, Iskenderian solid lifters, custom-made Smith Brothers pushrods, Crane aluminum roller rocker arms, special studs from Ryan Falconer Racing Engines, the engine produced 225 horsepower.
LOL... 225HP out of a pimped out, race prepped GEN2 based 3.4L... still looks cool and that intake doesn't look hobbled the like GEN2 2.8/3.1MPFI
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 03-26-2013).]
Trolls... with real flow data and power output numbers...
With all your pontificating about the capabilities of the iron heads all we have for data is the data for Will's Fiero pro ported iron heads, Francis T's stock chart and:
LOL... 225HP out of a pimped out, race prepped GEN2 based 3.4L... still looks cool and that intake doesn't look hobbled the like GEN2 2.8/3.1MPFI
So you have Will's #'s where Falconer clearly got rid of the intake vane where GM clearly says don't get rid of the vane and you think they are the pinnacle of performance? Oreif didn't get rid of the vane and flowed more CFM. However that's beside the point because you don't realize that the heads haven't been the limiting factor in V6/60 performance.
If 2 engines are dyno'd and one has a set of higher flowing heads but dynos at less horsepower than the engine with poorer flowbench #'s, then tell me troll, what do the heads matter if they aren't the restriction?
Quite frankly, this thread is about the engine in my car and how IT performs...not YOUR anything. I'm not going to pull heads off a perfectly running motor for the sake of any troll in the internet. I don't care if my heads only flow ONE CFM as long as my engine performs to MY satisfaction. Take it somewhere else.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 03-26-2013).]
It's a system with throughput limited by the bottleneck, just like a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
To turn your logic around, what good does putting a 1000 CFM throttle body in front of 100 CFM intake ports do?
We've established that the engine's volumetric flow demand is far beyond what any available heads can supply. Continuing to insist that the heads aren't limiting performance is purely head-in-the-sand behavior.
But, as we said before, if you're satisfied with an engine that will top out at most 230 WHP, then you've built exactly the engine you needed.
It's a system with throughput limited by the bottleneck, just like a chain is only as strong as the weakest link.
To turn your logic around, what good does putting a 1000 CFM throttle body in front of 100 CFM intake ports do?
We've established that the engine's volumetric flow demand is far beyond what any available heads can supply. Continuing to insist that the heads aren't limiting performance is purely head-in-the-sand behavior.
But, as we said before, if you're satisfied with an engine that will top out at most 230 WHP, then you've built exactly the engine you needed.
"We" haven't established anything. I find your behavior amazing. The cam I'm using and the displacement I'm using is established. If I can make the same power as the almighty AL heads then clearly, it's not the heads that is limiting the power but the cam. Rather than wait for a dyno, you and trolls keep trolling. GM, yes, GM said the heads can support 1.5 HP/CI which means 207ci * 1.5 = 310 hp. The limit will be the stock cam before it is the heads.
Yes, if this engine does put out 230 whp then it is the exact engine I need.
GM, yes, GM said the heads can support 1.5 HP/CI which means 207ci * 1.5 = 310 hp.
For obvious reasons, taking that out of the context of the original displacement is absurd. Can they continue to make 1.5 HP/cid on a 3900 and make 350 HP? I think it's clear that statement was originally made in reference to the 2.8 and approximately 260-280 crank horsepower. Regardless of how much displacement is under it, any head will have a horsepower limit.
And yes, we have established that your argument for why the heads are not a restriction is faulty. Over and over again.
So you have Will's #'s where Falconer clearly got rid of the intake vane where GM clearly says don't get rid of the vane and you think they are the pinnacle of performance? Oreif didn't get rid of the vane and flowed more CFM. However that's beside the point because you don't realize that the heads haven't been the limiting factor in V6/60 performance.
If 2 engines are dyno'd and one has a set of higher flowing heads but dynos at less horsepower than the engine with poorer flowbench #'s, then tell me troll, what do the heads matter if they aren't the restriction?
Quite frankly, this thread is about the engine in my car and how IT performs...not YOUR anything. I'm not going to pull heads off a perfectly running motor for the sake of any troll in the internet. I don't care if my heads only flow ONE CFM as long as my engine performs to MY satisfaction. Take it somewhere else.
LOL... wow. Thank you for telling me what I think and know about these engines... you really are hung up on the Falconer thing.
I didn't know where those numbers came from as the quote was out of context and don't believe I ever said anything about pinnacles of anything. Having a tantrum about intake port vanes still doesn't say a single thing about the flow characteristics of the heads you have in your hands though either. But it's not relevant, apparently deeper and wider is the best and velocity and equal flow is meaningless...
A stock 3500 top end on a 3400 block with a decent cam and a so-so tune can put 220HP to the wheels... people with J and N-bodies do it all the time.
So... like I said, I'm interested to see where you end up.
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 03-27-2013).]
Juast a lil FYI: Removal of the intake vane may add CFM but it does so at the cost of good fuel atominzatoin and is thus frowned upon. If I recall correctly, there were some Vet heads with vanes for the same reason?
For obvious reasons, taking that out of the context of the original displacement is absurd. Can they continue to make 1.5 HP/cid on a 3900 and make 350 HP? I think it's clear that statement was originally made in reference to the 2.8 and approximately 260-280 crank horsepower. Regardless of how much displacement is under it, any head will have a horsepower limit.
And yes, we have established that your argument for why the heads are not a restriction is faulty. Over and over again.
Actually no. The article was written in the late 90's well aware of the 3.4 and mentioning it. There's no point in saying 1.5HP/ci if it was only referring to a 2.8. They were referring to the heads and all the applications of the heads. I believe I linked the article in a prior post.
Actually no. The article was written in the late 90's well aware of the 3.4 and mentioning it. There's no point in saying 1.5HP/ci if it was only referring to a 2.8. They were referring to the heads and all the applications of the heads. I believe I linked the article in a prior post.
That's the Chevy Power book. I read it in its entirety years ago, and skimmed it again just now. The latest year I saw mentioned was 1987.
Here are some handy quotes for reference:
quote
Originally posted by The Chevy Power Book: Nevertheless, competition 2.8-liter engines with production cylinder heads are capable of producing over 1.50 horsepower-per-cubic inch with only minor port work.
...
Chevrolet Special Products has not evaluated the potential of the aluminum V6/60 head for racing applications and therefore has not developed recommended procedures for modifying this casting.
So clearly the author was referring to 2.8 engines. Also, because the latest year mentioned in the document is 1987, I think it's a safe bet that's the year it was written (in the absence of copyright or other markings within the document itself).
My interpretation is that because the author previously stated, previous to the quoted material, that the production cylinder heads do not have sufficient material for significant enlargement of the ports, that "minor port work" means basically a maximum effort port job on a production casting, as "major port work" simply isn't possible due to the aforementioned lack of material in the port walls.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 03-27-2013).]
So clearly the author was referring to 2.8 engines. Also, because the latest year mentioned in the document is 1987, I think it's a safe bet that's the year it was written (in the absence of copyright or other markings within the document itself).
My interpretation is that because the author previously stated, previous to the quoted material, that the production cylinder heads do not have sufficient material for significant enlargement of the ports, that "minor port work" means basically a maximum effort port job on a production casting, as "major port work" simply isn't possible due to the aforementioned lack of material in the port walls.
Yes, I got confused with the other V6/60 book, regardless, GM went on to make 300HP with a 3.0L...another nail in the "iron heads don't flow" coffin. As for oiling, a dry sump system robs more hp from a motor than a wet one, so I don't want to hear that excuse about those engines using dry sump oiling. Dry sump systems are for extended periods at high rpm. I can tell you my machinist did more than minor work on the heads. They are night and day compared to stock heads. The pictures on page 1 of this thread don't look impressive until you compare them to stock. However you can see how smooth he made the exhaust ports...as well as how large...
Hopefully Richard at Arrat Motorsports is back in the country and can resolve the issue with my caliper and I can get my car back so I can put to rest the issue with a dyno within the next month. The collision center thinks only my body panels moved and not my frame but they won't be sure until the car sits on all 4 wheels again.
There is no "iron heads don't flow" coffin. The idea that they do is the zombie.
Properly designed dry sump systems ADD power to an engine by pulling down crankcase pressure, thereby increasing BMEP. This more than compensates for the extra parasitic loss.
There is no "iron heads don't flow" coffin. The idea that they do is the zombie.
Properly designed dry sump systems ADD power to an engine by pulling down crankcase pressure, thereby increasing BMEP. This more than compensates for the extra parasitic loss.
Ah, you just gave me a great idea for naming the car... Since it already has a SLAYER logo painted on the hood, it shall be named after a SLAYER song: Live Undead
A properly designed dry sump system is designed to provide proper oil flow at both sustained high RPM and sustained lateral acceleration. This is where a wet system could cause an engine to fail. You can't tell me that running 3 or more oil pumps vs. 1 will not rob "net" horsepower. There is no doubt it improves longevity but in my case: useless.
That's the primary purpose of a dry sump system. However, if used with front and rear main seals which can seal vacuum into the crank case, the scavenge pumps will depress crankcase internal pressure. This increases the pressure difference across the pistons, increasing BMEP and giving the engine HIGHER output than it had without the dry sump system. Yes, this actually happens. It is observed. It is not theory. If properly sealed, dry sump engines become MORE powerful than their wet-sump counterparts.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 03-28-2013).]
Pulling a vacuum in the crankcase, like Will described, is actually a common racer mod. It does in fact provide a power increase, because it creates a greater pressure differential between the topside of the piston and the underside. The power gain from the pressure differential overcomes the parasitic power loss, just like it does in a forced induction system.
In any case, I'd like to see your dyno results.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 03-29-2013).]
I have to admit, I have ulterior motives. I'd like to see how much performance can be coaxed out of the iron heads, because my engine will have to use them. Unfortunately, the Falconer intake won't fit the aluminum heads. In a perfect world, I could "3D print" a LIM that would fit the Gen3 heads. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
I have to admit, I have ulterior motives. I'd like to see how much performance can be coaxed out of the iron heads, because my engine will have to use them. Unfortunately, the Falconer intake won't fit the aluminum heads. In a perfect world, I could "3D print" a LIM that would fit the Gen3 heads. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.
It's been at an acquaintance's collision center for 6 months... I saw it on Tuesday, they have been waiting for info(and parts) from Richard at Arrat Motorsports. The new bearing seems thicker and is causing the caliper to bind the rotor when you bolt the caliper on. New spindle might be the issue... Something's not matched...
Originally posted by Blacktree: Do the calipers bolt directly to the spindle, or are there adapter brackets? If it's a direct bolt-on, then yeah I'd suspect the spindle.
Direct bolt on but this wheel bearing came from Arrat and they only sell the 13" kit now not the 12" kit that I am using so I don't know "what" changed over the years... There were other changes but those have been handled already.
Ok so apparently, Richard, when he welded up the new spindle didn't drill the holes out far enough away from center by about 5mm, so the rotor hat is off to the machine shop to get shaved down in diameter so it doesn't interfere with the caliper..because I ain't waiting another month. Should have the car back at the end of the week.
After lots grinding, adding washers and using spacers etc... It turns out that Rich at Arrat built a bad knuckle and it and the original damaged knuckle are being shipped back so he can build one to the spec of my "old" kit. At least he's back in the damn country...
Richard has excellent customer service and has bent over backwards to help me. I hope he gets you squared away. I am curious to see how your car performs.
Richard has excellent customer service and has bent over backwards to help me. I hope he gets you squared away. I am curious to see how your car performs.
He is taking the part back and is also getting (or should already have) the original part which got damaged during the collision with the Ford Lightning during the Labor Day weekend race. So he should be able to make an exact replacement this time. Problem was he was out of the country for a month or so...and the guys at the shop ASSUMED the parts were the same when they originally received them MONTHS ago.
No one wants this car back on all 4's more than me. I have a race in 30 days. WTF...!!!
You didn't give much detail. Is your material cast iron or aluminum? For what application (GEN1, GEN2-4)? In other words, did your re-create the iron head form-factor in a different material but with higher flow in mind?
Same iron heads but more flow. The first set we did with the stock valves out flowed of the Falconer heads. I have those in my Fiero now.
It's not hard to outflow Falconer. They removed the intake vane that split the air around the valve stem, a big no-no. If you look at the opposite wall of the vane, there is a crevice to compensate for that vane that helps direct the air back down towards the combustion chamber.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 04-27-2013).]
Scroll down and look at the CNC port work pictures.
Nice that you got good results. I believe I'm using the same throttle body on my Trueleo intake now but even with the stock bored throttle body on a Mustang dyno I did 187/249. However you are enjoying the power past 4500 RPM that I couldn't reach due to the intake neck. ...a problem I have since rectified. I believe I spent $1450 on my heads and well worth every penny. It seems you went close to the extreme as my machinist but he did leave the vane.
Here's yours:
Here's mine:
Yet another example of iron heads putting down 240+ lbs*ft ... who would have thunk it?
you only picked up ~30 CFM on the intake with CNC porting? after bowl work and minor port work, my irons flowed what yours do, with little variation between ports.
...a problem I have since rectified. I believe I spent $1450 on my heads and well worth every penny. It seems you went close to the extreme as my machinist but he did leave the vane.
