I finally got my heads flowed (n2oMike) - Mustangsandmore Forums

Brought to you in part by:

.

Mustangsandmore Forums

I finally got my heads flowed (n2oMike)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: I finally got my heads flowed (n2oMike)
n2oMike Gearhead Posts: 1468 From: Spencer, WV Registered: Jan 2001	posted 06-05-2002 08:29 AM A buddy porting a set of his own heads wanted one of mine to go by... so I sent it to him. His part of the deal was to take it to a shop with a flowbench to get it flowed and ship it back... Well, he came through, and here are the results... I got these numbers from John, and was expecting a bit more from the intake... maybe it was the old valve job or how the heads were set up on the bench. :lol: I know very little about how the flowbench was set up, only that the guy seemed pressed for time. I don't know if the intake opening was radiused with clay, or if the guy used a pipe on the exhaust. All I do know is that there were several years worth of abuse on the valve job... it was not fresh by any stretch of the imagination. The valves were 1.94" intake, 1.60 exhaust. Intake -- Exhaust .1 063 -- 050.9 .2 119 -- 101.3 .3 168 -- 132.8 .4 201 -- 157.1 .5 210 -- 175 .6 218 -- 176.6 My intake volume was 155cc. (stock is 126cc) Comparing to the best of the aftermarket competition, here are AFR's published numbers for their fully CNC ported non emission 165's... intake -- exhaust .1 ----- ---- .2 123 -- 118 .3 186 -- 153 .4 225 -- 178 .5 243 -- 185 .6 250 -- 191 As long as there is no significant shrouding, or the short turn isn't too messed up, larger vavles will flow more at lower lifts. They provide a much larger window... especially when they are only opened a small amount. However, opening the bowls up large enough for a 1.94" intake valve is QUITE risky. The metal get VERY thin when the WHOLE bowl is opened up to around that size. I'd say 351W valves (1.84" / 1.56") would be nice in a 289 head. I might try widening the intake port floor as much as is practical before the short turn. (I didn't know this trick until after those heads were already finished and on the car) The exhausts did surprisingly well. I guess my design there worked out pretty well. If John wants to publish some pictures, that would be great... John, just the head up a tad first. Do any of the rest of you have ported numbers for small block (especially 289) heads? If so, share them with us! I'm curious as to how these compare with the rest of the world. Good Luck! ------------------ Mike Burch 66 mustang real street 302 4-speed 289 heads 10.63 @ 129.3 http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367 http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220 [This message has been edited by n2oMike (edited 06-05-2002).] IP: Logged
n2oMike Gearhead Posts: 1468 From: Spencer, WV Registered: Jan 2001	posted 06-05-2002 09:24 AM Here's a good site that has all sorts of small block flow data grabbed from various magazine articles. I can't stand for the validity of 'magazine' numbers, (or even my own) :lol: but, it doesn't look like I did too bad for a 'good ole boy' who's never even seen a flowbench in real life. http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/flowdata/castiron.htm Looks like my numbers came out quite a bit better than the 289 heads in the 400hp Joe Sherman 400hp 302 buildup... Here's a link to that article... http://www.jason.fletcher.net/tech/sherman/sherman.htm Comparing to the aftermarket, and seeing what Joe Sherman was able to do with his flow numbers, I guess it's a good thing we don't race flowbenches.... Fletch has a pretty good website. He runs the carbedmustang email list. http://www.jason.fletcher.net Good Luck! ------------------ Mike Burch 66 mustang real street 302 4-speed 289 heads 10.63 @ 129.3 http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367 http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220 [This message has been edited by n2oMike (edited 06-05-2002).] IP: Logged
Moneymaker Administrator Posts: 19611 From: Lyons, IL, USA Registered: May 99	posted 06-05-2002 11:04 AM Very close to yours Mike. C5AE-B castings near 230 @600 on the intake. 155 cc volume. What castings did you use? ------------------ Alex Denysenko Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02 Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 Part time secret agent license #0089 Professional Manwhore The Barry of BarrysGrrl IP: Logged
n2oMike Gearhead Posts: 1468 From: Spencer, WV Registered: Jan 2001	posted 06-05-2002 07:28 PM Going from memory, they are either C6AE or C6OE... They are not the C5 heads like you use that never had a thermactor hump. Mine had the one in the upper corner that made the port all crooked. Your castings are my personal favorites... it's much easier to center the guide in the port with those. I can double check the number and get back with you, if you wish. Good Luck! ------------------ Mike Burch 66 mustang real street 302 4-speed 289 heads 10.63 @ 129.3 http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367 http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220 IP: Logged
Moneymaker Administrator Posts: 19611 From: Lyons, IL, USA Registered: May 99	posted 06-05-2002 08:20 PM I'd be interested Mike as I am contemplating doing a 225 HP C6OE-M deal for next year with high compresion. The allowable intake volume is much less on the C6 head though so contemplation may be as far as it gets. ------------------ Alex Denysenko Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02 Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 Part time secret agent license #0089 Professional Manwhore The Barry of BarrysGrrl IP: Logged
Moneymaker Administrator Posts: 19611 From: Lyons, IL, USA Registered: May 99	posted 06-05-2002 08:23 PM LOL, or Dyno's Mike. ------------------ Alex Denysenko Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02 Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 Part time secret agent license #0089 Professional Manwhore The Barry of BarrysGrrl IP: Logged
TomP Gearhead Posts: 4764 From: Delta BC Canada Registered: Dec 99	posted 06-05-2002 11:20 PM Those exhaust ports have a ton of room for improvements if you aren't needing to keep the port in its stock location. i have a "buggered up" C6AE head that i raised the ports on. I tried all thise stuff in about 1983 or 4 when i still had my Pinto . The roof is at least 1/2" taller, i built the flange area up to extend above the Thermactor hump.The floor is welded up almost even with the bottoms of the header bolt holes. The width is almost into those bolt holes and the seats cut for 1.65" exhaust valves, leaving barely enough room for a 1.94" intake. They'd flow good, but it's not practical nowadays. For the motor,i ended up raising the ports 1/4" up top and doing no welding. i used the 1.94/1.65 (460 exh.valves) combo and sleeved the pushrod holes and ported till it hit the sleeves. Of course after paying $800 at the machine shop for heads i did most of the work on myself.... we stopped at AR in Ventura on the way to the Winternats and saw the prototype drawings for Alan Roots "Pro 1" heads... which became the J-302's by the time they were available. I felt like a buncha money had been wasted, quickly sold 'em for $600 (tough to do!)before aftermarket heads hit the market. IP: Logged
Moneymaker Administrator Posts: 19611 From: Lyons, IL, USA Registered: May 99	posted 06-06-2002 12:03 AM BIG, HUGE, ASTRONOMICAL mistake to overly enlarge the exhuast ports on 289 heads. We have learned a lot over the last 9 years. Anyone want to buy some ported 289 heads with BIG raised or BIG round exhaust ports? ------------------ Alex Denysenko Co-Administrator and Moderator/ non 65-66 Mustang owner sensitivity co-ordinator NHRA/IHRA/SRA member NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00, '01, & '02 Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 Part time secret agent license #0089 Professional Manwhore The Barry of BarrysGrrl IP: Logged
n2oMike Gearhead Posts: 1468 From: Spencer, WV Registered: Jan 2001	posted 06-07-2002 07:46 AM C6OE The exhausts came out to 55cc, (which is pretty large for the stock head) That crooked port is a little funky, but probably would have worked out just about as well (and done better in the lower lifts) if made a little smaller. I opened the thermactor boss side pretty much all the way out to where the port would be straight. It fits a FelPro #1415 gasket pretty well. Good Luck! ------------------ Mike Burch 66 mustang real street 302 4-speed 289 heads 10.63 @ 129.3 http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367 http://www.mustangworks.com/cgi-bin/moi-display.cgi?220 IP: Logged

All times are ET (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Mustangsandmore Front Page

Copyright 2003, Steve LaRiviere. All Rights Reserved.

Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47d

Amazon Honor System

[Acronyms][Calendar][Chat][Classifieds] [Links] [Members' Pics] [Tech] [ Mustangsandmore.com Bookstore] [Advertise on Mustangsandmore.com] [Mustangsandmore.com T-Shirts]