That was the plan!!! Thanks!

 

Just keep in mind when comparing the new Edelbrock head and its possible peak flow of 260 CFM up from the Old Edelbrock heads 240 CFM approx, other GM offerings production non exotic heads can flow 258 @ .500 lift with no porting (@28 inches) for comparison sake. Bottom line to make good HP with the new head its going to need work.

 

I was looking forward to getting the update on how to gain 30% head flow with a valve change and valve job.

 

Don't want to burst your bubble..........but thats probably not goin to happen, but if for some reason it does, I'am all about learning.

 

I like it here, when we all can play nice!

 

I never said you could gain those #'s.
But I am willing to bet. the gains listed are when you compare the new heads to good olds oem heads and a good valve job and mild bowl work/clean up. and back cut valves. The gains are far less than what it being claimed.
That was the whole point. WHAT IS THE TRUE gains over what a guy would have done to good oem heads before an alum. head was available. what are the flow differences of that.
IE. what will the guy that has good olds heads that he already cleaned up the bowl area, used better flowing valves, and a ggod valve job. Gain if he moved to the out of the box, and run new heads. in flow. We already know the chamber will help with a faster burn.
But looking at port flow.
Most drive more on the street than all out WOT track runs. so flow from .250-.550 matters. What they flow at .550 lift. don't matter much at part throttle or less cruise. power under the peak. does. all out peak flow is only a small part of a strong street mill.
If the alum head flows 15cfm more at .550 lift. but it is neck and neck to the stocker from .250-.400 lift. where the valve will spend MOST of it's time. your real world gain is small. over the curve. Peak power, bragging rights. but I don't drive around at 5500-6700 rpm much. it is in that range for a very short time. The time the valve is at .550 lift is very short compared to the time it will need to flow at .250-.400 lift. peak numbers sell things, but don't win much but bragging rights.

 

Interesting - your first post clearly states that you can. So which is it?

No bubble to burst... I forgot to turn on the sarcasm font. Maybe my results have been subpar because my pure stock heads didn't get the 5 axis valve job.

 

Bullshyt, you’ve never seen them so how do you know. That’s just another way for you to make money right? Sell something to someone that they didn’t need to do?
And the Gen II heads flowed about 260 at .600, not 240. Travato just posted a 496 Olds that made 633 with Gen II’s with “some bowl work and valve job”. So one of four things are at play here, his Dyno numbers are skewed, he did more than bowl work, they flowed more than 240 to start with, or he’s an out and out liar. I’ll go with number 3. Again by your own admission you never flowed a set of Gen II’s so you don’t know.

 

I hate the idea of defending VORTECPRO, But he did say, Just trying to be fair. QUOTE {but if for some reason it does, I'am all about learning}

 

Think you need to re read my post.
While using common sense and logic and reason.
I have seen the way "testing" is done when the outcome is to shine a brighter light on the part than, reality.
Just to make it clear as mud , so you have no confusion .
What is the difference in port flow of the new head OUT OF BOX. no "we need good numbers clean up , and v/j that non of the production heads will ever see. to the best factory oem production line head that has been treated to what a guy with an olds would do to them, because he HAD too. as their wasn't a any options other than 4000.00 race heads.
That guy would clean up the bowl area, use tulip back cut valves, new seats to replace the sunk'n leaded fuel exhaust seats. and a good valve job. Leaving the custom porting out of it, as that most times brings up the cost of the heads too much, and most never would have had it done, even when they didn't have alum street/strip heads available.
So, what is the flow spread between heads when you look at what the guy that is building for more power already has and had done, because he had no choice. And take the bias out of the testing to get data that is closer to reality. with data of flow of both from .200 lift to .550/.600 lift. Because anyone that has built engines knows the time the valve is open at peak lift is small. The flow under the peak from just off seat to peak matter allot . More so in an engine that be running a flat tappet cam that lobe ramps can't lift the valves as fast as a roller one and live. Fast lobe ramps on flat tappet cams don't last, when one tries to get near the ramp speeds of a roller.
And even with a roller, the valve time at peak lift is small compared to the whole duration of the lobe lift.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I am reluctant to jump into the fray, but isn't the point of the new heads that you can just bolt on the new heads instead of having to do all of the work to stock heads to achieve comparable flow numbers? We KNOW that the new Edelbrock heads flow better than the stock heads - that is a fact. If you have already sunken a lot of money into your iron heads or if you have the first generation aluminum heads, of course it may not make sense for you to invest in the aluminum heads. But if you have stock iron heads, especially the later versions, all of the work required to achieve comparable performance along with the cost of new valves, springs, etc., could easily cost more than the new heads unless you can do all of that work yourself.

For me, the new heads are about bolt-on performance for anyone looking for any performance boost above stock, and to really take advantage of the heads (things like a better cam, intake, headers) most people looking for additional performance would be doing these anyway. If you are looking to get the maximum performance out of your engine, it also seems like these heads would be a better starting point than stock heads, too.

In my eyes, the only comparison that matters is stock versus the new heads, and if the flow numbers Mark mentioned are correct, the new heads win hands down.

 

I posted all the info I have, from stock irons on up. If you need more info then do all the tests yourself. I’ve already done them and done everything I can to post them.
And just an FYI, on smaller duration cams most times a flat tappet is actually faster than a comparable duration roller so that puts your theory at risk to some degree. Sorry.

 

^^^^^^^^^
Thanks, well said.

 

Well, you see there are a bunch of guys and gals that already put the work into iron oem heads. and would like to know if spending 1500-1800. +/- is worth it. You maybe be money bags, but , let me ask this, would you spend 1500.00+/- for 5-10hp at peak, that is not 5-10hp through the whole rpm band ? Maybe you would, but most will not.
I want the heads to be a part that is in production for a long time, that only happens if they are truely worth swapping off the heads a guy already has.
Cause, once they are out and others get to test them, it will be all over speed talk forum. AND Those that do that were not part of the production/ r&d team. will not cherry coat the facts or skew the data.
It is better to force this new head to be better by a good margin than a worked over but not fully ported . stock head, If the part number is to sell.
I am sure cutlass efi hates what I am posting, but in the end it should help the product in the long run IF they bother to make sure when tested/compared to what most that have gone after hp. before other heads were available did to their heads.
Sure the guy/gal with snog heads that need tons of work will just buy the new heads, if the cost to rebuild the stockers is close to the cost of new. and heads that need all 16 guides ,,etc will. That is understood. BUT the guy with heads that he had already rebuilt with a bowl clean up, new guides, new valves and valve job, might not be so fast to just toss them for a new set that Gain him 5-10hp.
At 6000-6700 rpm. that his engine almost never sees.
Most would say, good point, that should be looked at. The way cuttyefi is taking the post as a personal jab. instead of what it is. At least to me. tells the tale . Me I would want to compare my work against the worked over stocker . To make sure once released and others do the test, it don't get hammered for lack of real world gains. It will be all over forums like speed talk. and other forums, if a guy swaps out his heads and goes to the drag strip and gains .001- .005 et and zero to 1 mph. news of that travels fast. That WILL make them d.o.a.
And no one wants that. I don't and why I am asking the questions and not just taking what is claimed as gold.
Seen hundreds of these type "test" I know the shenanigans employed to make a new product shine bright.
Today ,with the internet that will come crashing down allot faster than it would when it was just wnat the mag's printed. and what your machine shop told you. That they learned from word of mouth. Today it be on the internet in days with data testing graphs. showing proof of the data.

 

The fact that you think a cam of any type has a valve lift at it's peak lift longer than the .200 lift to peak. is all I need to know.
Have a god day.

 

There have been flow tests done on stock early 350 heads, not just by Cutlassefi. They flow about 185/160. Cutlassefi did just a bowl hog cut and minor blending with a good valve job and 2"/1.625" valves, I believe in the chart below on the 7a heads. The Edelbrock aluminum heads flow better in the low lift areas as well. Here is a good chart on Olds head flow.

 

I understand where you are coming from. I agree with many of the points you and making, and I think we agree in principle. As I said in my post, if you have already put all of the work into your iron heads, these new heads may not be for you, and that is okay. That does not mean that there is not a market for them. Every time that Cardi B or some new Korean Pop band comes out with new music, I do not bemoan the fact that they are not making music I like. I accept that their music is not meant for me, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a huge market of people who want their music.

As for being "money bags," you are making the exact point I was making. The estimates I got for bowl work, bigger valves, new springs, guides, etc., along with some minor porting far exceeded what it would cost to buy these heads. But if you have already done that work, that is great! You have great heads on your engine already! But that is a sunk cost. You have already spent that money, so these heads are not for you. I do think that if you were looking to significantly improve performance over your reworked heads, it would make sense to modify the new Edelbrock heads rather than to try to continue to rework your iron heads, but that is not what you are suggesting. And the number of people looking to do that is likely to be much smaller than the number of people looking for improvement over stock.

You also agree with me that the "guy/gal with smog heads that need tons of work" will buy the heads. That is exactly right, and that was the point I was making. Anyone who is looking to upgrade performance and has stock heads should consider these over investing similar if not MORE money into the iron heads to make them perform.

As for the target market for these heads, I look at it this way:
Anyone who wants to remain stock - NO
Anyone looking for a performance upgrade over stock - YES
Anyone looking for a BIG performance boost over stock - YES
Anyone who already spent a lot of money on reworking their iron heads - NO
Anyone who already spent a lot of money on reworking their iron heads but wants the most HP possible regardless of cost - MAYBE

Not all products are meant for every consumer, and that is okay. Edelbrock is betting that there is a big enough market for SBO heads to justify the new casting, and given the number of smog-era SBO engines out there and the continued interest and popularity of cars from the '60s-'80s, it seems like a reasonable bet.

 

For the record I just asked about the 30% gain: 200 CFM turns into 260 CFM with a valve job and valve work, I haven't seen that myself. As far as this new head goes any reputable engine builder WILL want to redo Edelbrock's valve job, it is substandard, at least in the past, of course everything going to change with the release of these new heads. And exactly what I mean by the valve job is substandard: runout, the valve will not be correctly seated and sealed, and I will make a video of this so everybody can understand whats going on here. Edelbrock is not the only aftermarket company that has this problem, its wide spread. I will flow test these heads, I've already flow tested the early Edelbrock heads. For me the new head will need porting to achieve my goals, cross sectional area will need to be opened up on a 460 inch engine, unless your happy with a 5000 RPM HP peak. And Grayghost, never mention the word drag strip around EFI, you will have problems on here if you do, I've been on this forum for many years, probably around 10 years, seen EFI build several engines, seen all kinds of dyno tests, but I find it strange not 1 (ONE) has ever been to a drag strip, and people will ask why does it matter-well because when that car you speak of (Greyghost) does go to the track theres a thing called the MPH over 1320 feet, and from this MPH we can mathematically tell if the dyno HP comes close to the observed track HP, so never ask about the drag strip on one of these threads, things will go better for you if you don't. As far as making posts such as the 30% well you could get challenged on that, cause believe it or not some could be educated on here more than you might think. So in closing: the new Edelbrock head is a better "starting point" than the older head.

 

That’s only one part of it. But that’s ok, you just told me how little you really know about cam tech. Have a nice day as well.

 

Velcro
As usual you missed the point, I never said these heads wouldn’t benefit from a different valve job. Please show me where I did.
But to get back to the reason for this post. A MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE PURCHASING THESE HEADS SHOULD, AND MOST LIKELY WILL BE, PEOPLE BOLTING THEM ON IN PLACE OF STOCK OR NEARLY STOCK IRONS. IN THAT SCENARIO THEY WILL OFFER A MARKED ADVANTAGE OVER VIRTUALLY ANY IRON THEY REPLACE. GET IT?
Probably not but I’m done addressing that at this point.

 

I agree.........but I'd appreciate you calling me by my original moniker: VORTECAMATUER thanks?

 

.300-.450 lift going to be critical, one has to keep in mind were the piston is when trying to fill the cylinder.

 

So what we learned from this post so far.
1. Edelbrock plans to sell a new Oldsmobile cylinder head
2. Larger intake valve
3. New oil drain back
4. New chamber
5. Cut out for mechanical fuel pump
6. Added material above the intake port.

Whether or not performance will change has not been solidified with complete data from multiple sources.

When I bought my first set back in the 90's the only data around was published from Edelbrock. They sat in a corner of my living over a year before I got around to having them tested. I was not happy.

When they are available that's when we will really know.



Another thing I learned from other posters is, inorder to seem big it's best to stroke your crank. Some of you are good at it. 😉

 

Can you imagine an aftermarket aluminum cylinder head thats flow like that, I'am sure you were disappointed.

 

I had the same experience. It took a trip to a good porting company to get them to have the flow I expected.

Since then, Edelbrock has had a lot more practice making heads and we hope the new iteration turns out well.

 

That's what I'm banking on. The thing is, flow numbers are just that, numbers. They are a good indicator of possible performance, not absolute. Engines are dynamic in nature. The original head out of the box was able to make enough power in a 455 A body to run 11.50-11.60 at 3700# with a 3.55 gear. The same motor with E heads with minor porting was 12.00.

In the end it is what we will have to work with.

 

Fair question- related to port sizes. Is it so that big-block sized intake ports have only roof rised, and floor at same level, or is the whole port higher, related to small-block heads ( original port sizes/locations, as in irons)?
Reason im asking is, if the only difference is on roof height, how would bolting up small block intake, without opening the port on intake, work? Reason i ask, is that there is some intakes which cant be opened. I get that people just buy edelbrock rpm with small blocks, but just for the sake of conversation.

In my opinion, the new castings look interesting. I have just so much money on my irons, that edelbrocks with valve job would cost exactly the same. And i might just happen to test them against irons, if the port allows ( my intake cant be opened up that much, i tested against big-block intake gasket).

 

The person to ask is Mark (EFI). I asked, what he told me is both heads have BBO port opening in stock BBO locations. What makes the small block head a small block head from my understanding is the chamber size and the smaller intake valve.

This is as I understand it from questions to Mark (EFI).

 

Tithe way i understand it is the small block heads are bolt on and go. If the intake needs welded and ported then they are not bolt on and go. Hopefully someone will clarify.

 

No, im asking if the floor ( lets talk just about irons for now for clarity) on small-block and big-block heads is at the same height? Is the difference only at the roof height, or?

 

I’ll try to clarify one last time. The Small block head is essentially the prior Gen II head with a Smaller, Redesigned chamber. Both heads have redesigned intake and exhaust ports but that’s from the gasket surface in. Openings are identical or nearly identical as before.
Hope this helps.

 

Inline, sorry I misunderstood. On iron heads the big difference is in the roof. The big block port is taller. As for the floors they are similar from what I can recall. I haven't work with iron heads in a long time and small block even longer.

 

Anything will run 11.50s in that crazy negative air you race in, remember when the baro goes over 29.92 your super charging the engine.

 

Still a douchebag. Still not part of this community. Nothing useful pertaining to the topic.

 

Old Bridge Town Ship Park NJ Conditions Sat Feb 20

• relative humidity = 75 %
• uncorrected barometer* = 30.23 inHg
• corrected barometer* = 30.32 inHg
• wind speed = 9.03 mph
• wind direction* = NW (298
• dew point = 20 deg f
• saturation pressure = 0.138 inHg
• vapor pressure = 0.103 inHg
• grains = 14.9
• air density (w/o water vapor) = 108%

• air density (w water vapor) = 108%
• density altitude = -2622.54 ft

Just stating fact, typical conditions @ Englishtown, 30.23 baro, super charged for for free, -2600 Density altitude. I would say conditions like this are 1/2 quicker than most parts of the country see. I have a friend who builds engines in Conn, he had a customer that wanted to go to INDY, the customer called from INDY and said hey I think I hurt my engine, I'am running slow, Joey said when you get back stop at ATCO and make a few runs, what do you know 1/2 second quicker. I feel when your talking about the performance of your car this should be mentioned, you race at a VERY fast track.

 

So?

 

Thanks, that was what i meant.
English is not my native so its sometimes hard for me to dress my thoughts to words.

 

A RPM or Victor Intake is needed on the SBO with BBO iron or these Edelbrock heads. Anything else will need material added at the tops of the ports.

 

I didn’t think about the Victor, i wonder how much power a 9.5-1 355 with these heads and a torque storm supercharger would make?

 

I’ll be able to answer half of that in the coming weeks.
My mule has 9.4:1 and will get tested with an RPM as well as a Victor. From there you can pretty much figure 25-30hp per pound of boost. Should be a fairly accurate estimate.