Yyyep!!

 

Now THAT is a fascinating hose routing that had never occurred to me! I had always seen the parallel plumbing using huge Y's going all over the engine compartment. That's a really neat setup, and something I might shamelessly copy.

 

Thanks, oddball. It took me a while to figure how to keep the lines at the rear, where they would be less noticeable.

I can send you a flow diagram and fittings list. If you are interested, send me your email in a PM.

 

Nothing like a good Olds head thread in th winter time. As I said: ima day late and 1000 short, because I just bought 1st gens with 2.15s and port work.

 

I am interested in new bbo heads. Thanks to Mark for help bringing new products.

 

I've talked to Mark about the AEM system, so I need know what that runs cost wise, expect the question Mark in future correspondence😁. I now need to discuss what a SBO RPM EFI setup runs to complete the package. I also like the creative running of the hoses. That looks phenomenal VC455!

 

The person we talked to would be in the know.
It was not some hired show hand to man a booth.
I don't want to put words in their mouth, So if they want to respond. I left that person an email with this thread linked.

 

moses! That looks pretty

 

Thanks, Chuck. It took a lot of experimenting with fittings to get there. But now I could be Summit's mid-South warehouse distributor for fittings!

Gary

 

Give it a rest.

 

Whatever. I can tell you they don’t frequent these sites, one reason why they thought a 403 was a big block.
There are other markets for both the big block and small block heads. The ‘73-‘76 smog 455 guys that are doing a full rebuild in their same year Cutlass. Or the guys that just want to do a top end job on their low compression 455. The small block head will fit the bill there really well.
And how about the 400G guys just wanting more power from bolt ons.
The point is, while you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, there is still great potential in either head. Sorry to be so optimistic😉

 

I used to attend the local trade show and Vic would even attend some times, so I'm not talking about a backwoods event. When the air gap for the big block was a done deal I asked the sales Rep at the show when they would be available, he had no idea that they were making a air gap for the big block Olds. It was even in there Catalog so I pointed it out to him. He had no idea because it was for a Oldsmobile!
Some of the sales reps are top shelf others not so much.

 

Im like many on here im a member of more than 1 forum. Ive always wondered why we dont see more participation from aftermarket vendors or OEMs. Facebook google et all are so interested in even trivial data, i think the dedicated forums like this one are a great way to collect real time data from actual enthusiasts.

An example ( besides the edlebrock heads). My daily driver had an odd kinda intermittant ~30second grind when cold noise. I had an idea what it was but not why. I searched my forum of choice found many similar matches to the issue as well as the fix. Just as many helpful posts as there were posts of people bringing their vehicle to the dealer for the same thing and getting the standard “we couldnt reproduce it” and sent on their way. The fix BTW is an upgraded vacuum check valve $6 to me but maybe 50cents to the OEM. If the OEM would have fixed the customer vehicle in 1 quick visit I think it would go a long way towards customer satisfaction. My biggest complaint about my daily driver is the dealer sucks. Just sending someone away doesnt fix anything only makes it worse.

If they actively monitored enthusiasts forums like this made a database of enthusiasts wants/needs/desires/rants i would think they would be worlds ahead VS collecting how many times i click like on the latest cat video on you tube (it was twice BTW)

kinda like the other day when rockauto responded toa thread and indicated they were looking into a section of the oldsmobile parts database that may be inaccurate. To me thats good customer service.

 

To get back on track, I just had the new Small block heads flowed. While I can’t release the actual numbers quite yet, I will tell you it flows approximately 30% more at .550 than a stock iron head. Exhaust is over 20% at the same lift. Chambers cc’d at 68.5, target was 68 so I can’t ask for any better. These are right out of the box numbers, with zero changes, zero. This head is really going to wake up A LOT of builds, both big and small block.

 

That is incredible! Thanks for sharing.

I can think of a few interesting new tests for your dyno.

 

Hi Mark, Any flow info on the Big block heads? Or have I miss that.

 

Not yet, probably be a few weeks for those. I wouldn’t expect a huge difference in the two but the bb heads certainly have more potential.

 

Well, do tell!

 

Well, selfishly, I would love to see the new heads on an otherwise stock Rocket 350, preferably both the low compression and high compression versions from '68-'70? I think the new heads make more sense on the high compression version since the new dish size should drop the compression to 9.5-9.75 to 1, but I also think it would be interesting to see how the lower compression engine would perform. There would be a similar drop in compression, but would the better flowing heads offset any losses due to compression?

 

Great. but street use and such.
What they flow at .250 to that .550 lift off the seat. Remember most will be running a flat tappet cam that the lobe ramps are not as fast as a roller cam so the flow from .250 to .550 matter And did BOTH heads have the same valve job and valves. I.E. did the new ones have back cut tulip valves and the stockers have well, stock valves
This info is meaningless if they both do not have the same valves, and valve job. Hell you can make 2 sets of stock heads that are the same castings, flow 30% Intake and 20% ex. With valves and type and quality of the valve job. One decked out, and the other with a single angle valve job and rebuilder cheap valves. We have done this before on mopars, to prove the worth of good parts and valve job.
For this test to be useful, the stocker needs the same valves and valve job. as the new fancy heads with 5 axis or better valve job. and high flow valves.

 

So you want me to get some stock irons, put 2.07/1.68 valves in them and then make sure everything else is the same? Really?
That won’t be the main scenario in this case. I think it’s safe to say a vast majority will be buying these heads INSTEAD of doing all that to their stock ones. Why would someone spend the money twice, that’s stupid.
My mule heads are #5’s I believe with 2.00/1.62 valves, a good valve job and cc’d to 65. Compression will be 9.4 with the irons and about 9.25:1 with the Edelbrocks. I think that’s good mainstream representation. And I can tell you categorically, rollers are selling better and better all the time.

 

BS. There's no way you're picking up 60+CFM changing a valve and doing a valve job unless it's completely hammered to **** to start with or you're intentionally trying to sandbag the results of the poor flowing valve.

 

Exactly. Why dump all that money in iron, when you can shave poundage off the nose?

 

Help me understand, are you saying for example a stock 455 G head, with a stock valve that flows lets say 200 CFM @ .500 lift @ 28 inches can improve to what with a custom valve job with a custom valve and no other work?



I will reply for you:

I'am thinking a (5axisLOL) valve job with some angles put on the valve isn't going to get you a 60 CFM increase.

 

Any thoughts on putting the SBO heads on a 330. I have a 65 that is in dire need of a rebuild.

 

Absolutely, if you have the right piston for what you’re trying accomplish I say YES.

 

I don’t think there would be a compression drop as you stated since these heads measured 68.5 cc, which is on par with the actual volume of production heads. It seems you are thinking SBO heads are 64cc as incorrectly shown in a lot of online sources.

 

Yes, you are correct. All the sources I have seen show the factory heads from '68 as being 64cc. All of the calculators I have used showed that I would need a 68cc volume to achieve around 9.5 to 1 compression with flat top pistons and modern head gaskets.

If 64cc is wrong for #5 heads, what is the correct size? I guess at the end of the day, it would not really matter much since the piston dish is really determining the compression, although there might be a small compression difference due to the head gaskets.

 

I would go with the larger bore 350 block to take advantage of the new head.

 

With new parts like a drop in crank , rods and the new small block heads the DX & D block build look like the best bang for dollars.

 

I think you are 100% correct! Jmo

 

I thinking bore out the DX block to 4.155 Big block head. And a shot of around 100 HP NOS. When you need it.

 

Typically 68-70 for 5, 6, and 7a heads.

 

Why?
With the new small block head you do not have to correct intake alignment. The engine would make so much HP/TQ no power adder would be required. I would go conservative on the bore to allow for a future re-bore and thicker cylinder bores that provide a straight strong stable bore.

 

I am old, this is my last engine. There maybe another .010 to .030 with testing to 4.165 or 4.185. But that will be someone else's problem. Correct piston and deck height, and correct CC of head. I will need help with. No problem calculating correct intake alignment. I have done before. Milling intake to fit just right is no big deal. The bigger valves in the new BBO head. And careful porting. Looking for 600 to 650 max HP. Don't need all the time, NOS will get me there when need.

G- body were never made to take big power. Added this week, rear shock tower brace and adjustable trailing arms braces. New rear end heavy duty cover with load bolts. Plus all the front and back bracing I have done already. See my older profile pictures for work already done. Working on a way to beef up frame rails. Not looking to remove the body, to box weld them. I will find a way. Already the car handles like C-5 Corvette.

I ported 7a heads with 2.07 valves. With 64 or 65 cc, I no longer remember. Ported, milled and port match the 7111 intake And was amazed at the huge difference.

 

I never said it could not be done.
But I am sure you have a lot more into that intake (buying it then having the injector bungs welded in.
Than what an off the shelf mpefi intake does.
That was my point.
They have the system, they pour the intakes at their own foundry , they design and make the molds in house .
Why on heavens earth do they only offer bbc/sbc/sbf proflow systems.
I get it ford 302 chevy small and big block have a much bigger usage in the hobby. But mpefi isn't new it is 40 years old.
With EFI getting more, and more use in the hobby, and no one having them(intakes), for the other engine families that THEY ALREADY POUR INTAKES FOR.
You would think that adding in the bungs to the casting and offering intakes machined for injectors. They move a ton of intakes. And not just olds, other Fords engine families ,Caddy, Buick, Pontiac, Amc, Mopars.
As it allow people to use them with the pro flow set up, the holley efi, the mega squirt, The g.m. factory TPI ecu and harness on cruiser mild builds. We put one such set up on a mild Pontiac 326 v8. The hardest part was the injector bungs, because we had to send the intake out to be welded and had to wait, and wait, and wait.

 

No, and you know it.
A set of stock good flowing heads, that has a set of valves with a back cut, and the heads have a good valve job, and the normal quick bowl clean up.
You know like everyone did before heads were available.
You know because of the cost I was not expecting putting oversized valves, a full port job and such.
What is the difference in flow, when you take the Olds good flowing stock heads, put in tulip back cut valves and a good valve job and bowl clean up. Like what is done to every engine other than a base rebuild, when rebuilding for extra power but stuck with factory heads.
Anyone can take a smog era head, with stock valves, and sink the seats overly grinding in a single angle v/j .
It was done for decades to make the aftermarket units look so much better than the oem or "other" brand that was not sponsoring that months issue. Been in dynamometer cells while that "test" was being done. The readers got skewed data that favored the brand that greased thy palms, with either ad dollars or free parts.

 

Pretty sure his iron #5 heads have the crossovers filled with a quite a bit of blending done in the bowls. Almost everyone uses the 2"/1.625" W31 valves in Olds 350 iron heads. If the new Edelbrock heads flow what they say, isn't that close to maxed out #5 castings? Pretty sure Ralleye Bob's maxed out #5 heads done by Rocket Racing flowed in the 270 range. There is also the new Combustion Chamber, how much efficiency will it add? I am really curious, if like most modern heads, will they require less timing to make maximum power?

 

Here you go.This is the most comprehensive comparison I've ever seen or been a part of to date.
https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...rmation-72789/

 

Thanks! It is great that the new Edelbrock heads are right in the zone.