any intake, including a factory one can be made to work. Not that hard

 

Yes, but I did say current and as cast, no doubt, all can be welded and ported to work for additional cost.

 

no welding.

 

Thanks Firewalker for that Great Cylinder Head Inspection. I was wondering what percentage of Valves today are made with Stainless Steel in your Ballpark Guess. I went to Aircraft Mechanic School back in the 70s and at the Time they said the valve were made of Satellite (Sodium Filled) I believe for Cooling) Air-cooled Engines. I was wondering if this was a dinosaur or what in your honest opinion. Just Wondering. Thanks for your time.

 

I think you mean Stellite. It has been used for a variety of things over the years. Machine shop cutting tools, valve seats in steam turbines, wear edges of snow plow blades and many other uses. I believe that it was used as "hard facing" on camshafts and valve lifters by a couple of "cam manufacturers" for a while.

 

Please explain how. I'm not saying your wrong, just for educational purposes. I looked at my RPM and Performer and there is considerably more material above the port on the RPM intake. Edelbrock states the RPM must be used with their heads. Do you slot the intake bolt holes to raise the intake or use epoxy? Curious minds must know. I have two iron SB intakes and a Performer in the shop, Mark has my RPM for SEFI conversion. I am going look and measure how much material is above and below the ports. Very interested.

 

I measured my intakes, they are all different for material, above and below the port. All are approximate. The SB Performer, 3/4" above and below. The #16, the one that really matters for late 70's Trans Am's is 5/8", above and below.. The #17 307 early iron intakes only have 1/2" above and below the ports. What are the new SB head actual port opening dimensions?

 

My knowledge on valves is sketchy and weak on those two subjects, as compared to some others, or perhaps many others. I know only stuff from 50 years ago on that subject, such as stainless valves then would not hold their shape over many miles. Fine for drag or other racing where the time run is short. But that was stainless valves then, and I have no idea if they hold up to high miles now and hold their shape for 100,000 miles or more.

On the sodium filled valves I remember Ford used them in some engines for awhile, but ran into problems with some of them breaking.

 

I called mondello they said they have it on back order for pre orders interested to see dyno numbers compared to the old heads

 

Which Mondello?

 

First I doubt they would have access to that scenario, but whatever.
With that said they were worth about 12-17hp more vs the Gen II’s on a 10.0:1 455 with one of their shitty cams in it.
But what’s it matter, I don’t think people are going to pull off their Gen II’s and replace them with these. Plus these are it, no more of the others, ever.

 

first off grinding the intake roof in the intake to match a big block port is just wrong to start with.

raise the intake as much as possible, with a spacer or stacked gaskets. Yes to slotting the intake bolt holes.

blowing open the intake to match a big block head port screws up the cross section at that point.

The port opening on any big block head should never be used as a template for the intake opening.

 

Back in the early-mid 1970s there were adapter plates you could buy, to use when running the BBO heads on the small blocks. Certain IHRA classes allowed any non altered factory head, as long as it would fit.

 

Thanks Dale, very good info. I may get Mark to do the mild port opening massage on my RPM like he did for the dyno mule.

 

I agree, I don't think people will pull their older Gen 2 heads and install these, except maybe for those needing a mechanical fuel pump since these new heads have clearance for it.

The real power gain would be when they are ported. Some dyno testing would be required. I don't know if anyone would run a dyno with a stock Gen 2 head and then install a stock Gen 3 head and see the power difference. All on the same cam. That would show the HP gain between the 2 heads in stock form.

 

I called Bernard spoke to a lady there they have the heads but there getting it to the people who have it pre ordered from what I was told.

 

PM’d you.

 

That's the right Mondello.

 

Just incase anyone is interested in potential torque and HP with the new 60125 heads here you go. Engine built for jet boat and built with recommended parts from Bernard Mondello in Corona. It has performer intake, SRP 60 over pistons, eagle rods, Howard roller cam with 4-7 swap, Harlan Sharpe rockers, QFT 850 carb.

 

Thank you for posting. Cam specs? Carb?

 

After draining the oil, and oil pressure drop @ higher RPM you might want to look at the oil pan design, very important with a hyd roller. Comp ratio? I always like to work with Bernard myself, good people! I've noticed Bill, EFI, and this test above all seem to be very close in power produced with this head.

 

Yes the oil pan is a Milodon 10 quart Steve Brule who ran the dyno session recommended to only run 8 Quarts. I was not impressed with Milodon build quality I was lucky enough to have Bernard tell me not to use the Milodon oil pump drive. The ramp from hex to round is not high enough and can cause it to not go deep enough into the pump and then when distributor is bolted down it causes the drive gears to push on the housing. Comp is approx. 10:1 the pressure drop did not seem to concern Steve too much. The engine does have restricted push rods and Cam bearing's. I lucky enough to live close to Bernard's shop so I can go in there and converse with him and his wife and yes very good people.

 

Carb? Cam specs by chance? Ty!

 

How many versions of the Edelbrock head have been cast? Is it three now?

 

Yes these are third Gen.

 

So here’s one for you, I’ve used Eagle big block cranks with 0 pan or counterweight work, yet my oil pressure stays rock solid with those. Why?

 

Here are the cam specs more power could be gotten with slightly bigger cam but I went for engine longevity we did not want to spin it past 5500 rpm. And yes I did degree cam to make sure it was to spec which it was with the crank sprocket at 0. I thought put the carb in the original post oh well it's a quick fuel SQ-850 as recommended by Bernard and was good right out of the box just like he said.

 

Did Bernard think the cam with 4-7 swap. Was better for a jet boat engine?

 

It boils down to this "The final benefit for a 4-7 swap is addressing torsional vibration issues with the crankshaft and main bearings" and there will varying options about it Bernard recommended it so that is the way I went. Oldsmobile 455's don't have a great reputation for stout bottom ends and yes it's largely due to oiling but the 4/7 swap works so why not add another degree improvement.

 

Wow, small cam but obviously puts the tq where you want it for a jet boat. Again, thanks for sharing.

 

My pleasurer others will build for different applications but I wanted to show what to expect with the new heads and this combo and it's probably one of the first in So. Cal on the dyno outside of Edelbrock R&D. I'm Ford guy who got roped into doing this for a family members boat that had sat for 20 years. I started followed this site almost a year ago while waiting for the heads to be released and learned a lot about Olds engines from the folks here. I almost went with the speed master heads but Bernard convinced me to wait and boy I'm glad I did.

 

Its also where you want it, for just anything else including boats, except for a dragstrip only car. And that cam other than the 4/7 swap, and a few degrees tighter lobes and a hydraulic roller is what I spec for mine. Even the lift is the same at the valves, when you use 1.7 rockers instead of 1.6, which I did. Funny how much POWER it makes.

 

Are those heads "out of the box" or did Bernard blueprint them or do other work?

 

The intake on that jet boat motor is killing the top end power. Unless you have a real big heavy boat and an A3 impeller, there is no reason to use a performer.

what’s the boat and impeller specs ?

 

It's not about top end power on anything besides all out race engines and with advertising salesmen. Its about average power below 5000, especially with BBO and that's where the Performer shines.

 

it’s all about top end power in a jet application. Top end meaning wide open throttle rpm. Jet drives do not need low end TQ .

Top end power in a jet drive at wide open throttle can be as low as 4500. That’s the top end I’m talking about. With a single plane this engine will definitely make more top end power between 4000 and his self imposed 5500.

you have no idea how a jet drive works,, all that low end TQ isn’t used. It takes very little TQ to spin a jet down low, very little TQ.

average power? Are you kidding? No such thing in a jet application. You have WOT RPM to get on plane and max speed, and minimum cruising RPM to say on plane . That’s it.

 

Anyway, that intake does not take advantage of the heads. I’ll bet its kills the intake flow by 15 or 20 cfm

 

Bernhard wrote:
Dale.What are your thoughts about a small block Oldsmobile powered Jet boat based on your statement above?

 

there were factory production jet bots with the small block Olds . Tahiti for one put the sbo in their smaller boats. Both the 350 and 403

I have a SeaRay SRV 190 with a bbo. Early 70’s deep V

 

What about their bigger boats? Did they put 350 or 403’s in those after they quit making 455’s? Did they run better/faster than with 455’s?