Come on Bernhard,VP and his minion are constantly on his butt. At least Dale is civil about it.

 

Nobody is blaming Mark. These heads have been a topic on this forum for a while, its just surprising to find out their not that good. Honestly don't you think Edelbrock could have come up with something better? Anyone want to put up the price on these?

 

Those double hump/camel heads look amazing. My buddy in 86/87 had a 327 in a 68 camaro and swear that thing had wings. He had a nice set of those. Olds didn’t have anything aftermarket back then except Batton heads.- just saying. We had RHS in the 80’s which did some irons for me. Just happy we have something. Too late for these for us on these heads. The small block ones when they come out - might just get a set on my Dad’s Trans Am….that will help a lot of 77-79 Trans Ams.

 

VP/Marks or anyone else that points out that the heads do not flow that well out of the box, are not busting Cutlassefi/ Marks *****. The data is the data plane and simple.
The heads are an upgrade from the old design from my understanding and that the intake port can be raised. Let's see how they perform after the likes of Bill T have maximized there potential.
Everyone has a right to their opinion and both Dale and Mark have a good understanding of what cylinder heads have to flow to produce X amount of HP.

 

It's not just the heads and if you can't see it,I can't help you.

 

Where did you derive this number ? Less than 1% could be expected for flex/deflection, I would think.

I am not following the .580" to get .500" at the valve math.

 

With a 5% increase, that 231 at .500” becomes 242.5

Edelbrock had inflated flow numbers posted on their website for years for the gen1 heads. If they post these numbers, with a 5% increase, they still won’t beat the old inflated numbers.

I wonder what they’ll do?

 

As soon as I get a set of them in my shop I’ll pour a mold of both good and bad intakes to compare with the gen1’s

im still not understanding the reversal of the flow in the good vs bad int port?

If that is actually #2 and #4 intake

 

Below is a post by Cutlass/efi
This one is one regarding Harold.


Most all the Old Ultradyne stuff is within a degree or two of the Lunati VooDoo stuff.
Same piece of sh*t designer.
Lunati has a 227/233 VooDoo. Should be about the same except for maybe lsa.

Here is another post calling out CP Motor works

Originally Posted by cutlassefi View Post
Yep, mine made 533 with a Victor, better head and more cam. So who’s numbers are inflated, mine or his? Be careful here cuz you’ve openly doubted my numbers numerous times, saying MINE were inflated. Pipemax calculated 115% VE on his, a mildly ported iron head with a small cam, really? Hmmm is right.

Mark has been on Bill T for years about his water temp numbers during dyno pulls

This is my point Marks a grown man with strong opinions that has a track record of calling others out. I have no problem with it nor do I have a problem when others call out Marks work.

 

If that is actually accurate that would be the best news about the head. With the old heads the difference between inner and outer was way more pronounced.

 

In my view anyone who thought these were going to be some all out race ready heads was plain old delusional or really bought into the over inflated hype. In my opinion the things that needed the most fixing to really allow the head to have real potential were never addressed.

I'm just glad they are still making them in any form.

 

X2, well said.

Bernard, I’ve explained myself many times on the Bill T stuff. But one more time, why would you Dyno a STREET engine at 130*? Conversely he Dyno’d an alcohol engine at 160*. Do you know the difference? That’s all I’m saying.
And when it comes to Pete’s build, do you really believe that it made better tq per liter than the new 1000hp 632 BBC Crate engine? I choose not to believe that but you can do whatever you want to.
Finally, regarding Harold Brookshire, he was a CONVICTED pedophile, not accused, CONVICTED. I hope you have children, would you invite him to your house? I would’ve cut his ***** off if I had the chance. That’s sick.

 

Good idea. Anyone that’s making comments, especially negative ones, sight unseen should probably do the same

 

Mark I have no problem with you calling others out.
As far as Harold that's sick!

 

Mark does Edelbrock still produce this head?

Edelbrock Performer RPM Bare NHRA Stock/Super Stock Cylinder Heads 60517

 

you think they flow good under .600”?

 

The intake port was suppose to be redesigned..correct?

 

I don't know, honestly. To me, it's just a bunch of numbers on the internet.
I do know that I'm glad I didn't wait for them and bought the used gen 1s with 2.15s port work, and springs to match my cam (this time around).

 

Yes, They moved the inner wall back and gained 20cc of runner volume. You’ll see it once you get a set in front of you.
Btw ALL of the older heads had Intake runners of approx 198, NOT the 188 they advertised. New one is 218.

 

I don’t know where you got your numbers from but it didn’t make more TQ per than the 632.

the 632 makes 876@5600 which is 1.39 while the 434 made 595@4100 for 1.37. The 632’s power band is much higher than the 434 which is why the TQ per cube of the 632 doesnt seem so high..it’s at 5600.

when the peak TQ occurs past the 5252 point you get a bigger spread between the TQ per& HP per . That’s the way it works..

both engines have opposite max’s per because of where the TQ peaked for each

632 max TQ per 1.39 , max HP per 1.59
434 max TQ per 1.37 , max HP per 1.27

I’ve built engines that are more than 1.39 TQ per cube. I thought you said before it was the last time you would harp on about Bills water temp?

 

Bernard keeps wanting to bring that up so…..
And yes I meant to say the tq was about the same as the BBC crate engine.

 

which inner wall was moved back,, in all intake ports, Inner, outer? Were they all increased 10%?

thats a big volume increase . I’ll have to look at my old notes on this stuff

 

Semi-related

 

And thats just the start, like I've said before you have to go completely through these heads if you want them right.

 

So since I have one of those heads sitting here with the two valves out for flow testing . . . . . I checked those two guides and they are at .0013" intake and .0015" exhaust. To be honest with you it is very difficult to measure guides that accurately. If you use the Sunnen gauge that Bernard is using the setup fixture can vary a few tenths simply by how tight you set it. Same goes if you use a micrometer like I do. There is always that "feel" to any measurement.

What this also shows is like Mark said you basically have to check everything. And that is not just for Edelbrock products. It goes for every single part you get.

 

yes

 

So these new gen Edelbrock really only flow a tick better the the Speedmasters OOTB? The way I see it, but Speedmasters and port them for about the same $$$ as the Edelbrock, but with probably better components and will flow/work better. Now porting these new Edelbrocks totally changes things? Not sure what would be better? The new Edelbrocks sounds like there is more potential. But bang for the buck streetcar edge might just go to Speedmasters.

 

You have to consider the valve guide quality and valve material, the Edelbrocks have a 2.15 Intake valve already, the Edelbrock is thicker probably. All these heads need a prep job, just the way it is.

 

....and whether you choose to support Freedom or Communism.

 

X2 I had nothing against the Chinese people! But their leaders are the worst!

Olds Performance and Machine is finding the same problems with valves guides. One head was good the other was too tight!

 

ALL heads are having issues like that these days. NO matter who you get them from, you or your people YOU TRUST should go thru them! We had a set of CFE BBc BIG $$$ heads that were tight on the guides too. Has a shop do a set of heads for me years ago, same thing, tight guides and hung a valve open. My Big Chiefs done by Reher Morrison was tight when at SLICK Ricks.

 

No, the Speedmasters do NOT flow as good as the new Edelbrocks out of the box. Just look at the intake port entry on the Speedmasters and that should remove all doubt.

 

You talking about Andy Miller?

 

Yes, don't hold it against me!

 

Mark, I didn't say they flow as good as the new Edelbrocks! I think there down about 15 across the board, could be less??? That I don't know. I used the independent posted in the first post and used the post #11 for the Speedmasters in the thread listed below. HERE it says the OOTB Speedmasters outflow the Edelbrocks on intake port #2????

https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...stings-139727/

 

Mark, even your info put the Speddmasters ahead till .500!! Now with porting the Speedmaster to bring the $$$ the same, the SM should be a better bang for the buck heads.


https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums.../#&gid=1&pid=1

 

Will the Edelbrocks be available bare anytime soon ? I see Jegs has SM bare heads for $496.xx ea.

 

Correct but not with a better valve job, and those were Gen II’s, not the new ones.

 

Not sure, they’re still trying to fill the back orders for complete heads. I’ll ask again though.

 

ty