When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I clicked the link and it said blocked. So not sure. I know, from talking to the guys at Livernois Motorsports, that they have done some flagrant coping of products and gotten "busted". But no idea if there have been any ramifications. I would suspect that since this a copy of an Edelbrock head that is no longer available it would still be available. But you never know what's going to happen.
jerry
You're right; the link doesn't work. Sorry the site software sucks. I tried to fix it, got frustrated, and gave up.
No gain at -.400" lift? What data are you looking at. The original head flowed 237/242 at 0.400. The port matched head flowed 248/243. That's no gain? If you average the two ports the stock head flows 239/240 CFM and the port matched head flows 245/246. Is that no gain? Also, your "logic" is flawed because, they way you describe it all of the flow through the port is evenly distributed across the port. Meaning that at .100 and .200 lift, you could easily cut the port size in half and have no impact on flow. Wrong. Take a screw driver and move it around the port at low lift. If you were correct it would NEVER have an impact on flow because 1/4" or 3/16" wide blocking part of the port wouldn't make a difference. But it does if you put in the correct area.
Also, since you say you have 25 years of experience of flowing things you would know that flow numbers are NOT exact. Yesterday I was a flowing a D head and it was flowing about 80 CFM at low lift. But the number was moving between 77 and 83. That's the nature of the beast. Thats why the flow bench I'm using takes data about every 3/4 of a second for a total of 5 samples. But guess what? It's not moving up and down in a nice rythmatic fashion. Sometimes I stays higher longer, sometimes lower longer. Flow it again and the numbers will move some, not a lot, but some.
Also, most of the time you put clay around the port to smooth the transition and simulate and intake manifold. Is the shape of the clay the same everytime, no. If I was in the business of flowing heads, and I'm NOT, I'm just providing data, I would have a 3D printed inlet to take this variability out of the system, like the guys at Livernois Motorsports do when they are doing cylinder head developement.
And like I said before port matching the heads picked up 25 horsepower on the engine dyno. If you talk to a real cylinder head flow person they will tell you that flow on the flow bench is at BEST a guideline. To really know if a change works you make the change, run it on the dyno and see the HP. If it made power it worked. This is why E heads flow LESS than C heads but yet made more HP. The J heads, which flowed poorly, made the same or slightly more HP (in a "stock" configuration) than the C heads. Why? Why is flow not the be all end all representation? Because velocity plays a role. There are these things on the flow bench called velocity tubes and you can measure the velocity at different points. Guess what, the bottom of the port has more velocity and flow than the top, I'm sure you know that. But yet your argument, doing the match, is that flow is equal through the whole port. While you didn't say that, you implied that by doing the match.
Please stop. You are just being a hater and it's obvious.
jerry
Thanks Jerry. This is what I fight from Dale(Canadian olds) on here all the time. He’s never wrong, in his mind anyway.
No gain at -.400" lift? What data are you looking at. The original head flowed 237/242 at 0.400. The port matched head flowed 248/243. That's no gain? If you average the two ports the stock head flows 239/240 CFM and the port matched head flows 245/246. Is that no gain? Also, your "logic" is flawed because, they way you describe it all of the flow through the port is evenly distributed across the port. Meaning that at .100 and .200 lift, you could easily cut the port size in half and have no impact on flow. Wrong. Take a screw driver and move it around the port at low lift. If you were correct it would NEVER have an impact on flow because 1/4" or 3/16" wide blocking part of the port wouldn't make a difference. But it does if you put in the correct area.
Also, since you say you have 25 years of experience of flowing things you would know that flow numbers are NOT exact. Yesterday I was a flowing a D head and it was flowing about 80 CFM at low lift. But the number was moving between 77 and 83. That's the nature of the beast. Thats why the flow bench I'm using takes data about every 3/4 of a second for a total of 5 samples. But guess what? It's not moving up and down in a nice rythmatic fashion. Sometimes I stays higher longer, sometimes lower longer. Flow it again and the numbers will move some, not a lot, but some.
Also, most of the time you put clay around the port to smooth the transition and simulate and intake manifold. Is the shape of the clay the same everytime, no. If I was in the business of flowing heads, and I'm NOT, I'm just providing data, I would have a 3D printed inlet to take this variability out of the system, like the guys at Livernois Motorsports do when they are doing cylinder head developement.
And like I said before port matching the heads picked up 25 horsepower on the engine dyno. If you talk to a real cylinder head flow person they will tell you that flow on the flow bench is at BEST a guideline. To really know if a change works you make the change, run it on the dyno and see the HP. If it made power it worked. This is why E heads flow LESS than C heads but yet made more HP. The J heads, which flowed poorly, made the same or slightly more HP (in a "stock" configuration) than the C heads. Why? Why is flow not the be all end all representation? Because velocity plays a role. There are these things on the flow bench called velocity tubes and you can measure the velocity at different points. Guess what, the bottom of the port has more velocity and flow than the top, I'm sure you know that. But yet your argument, doing the match, is that flow is equal through the whole port. While you didn't say that, you implied that by doing the match.
Please stop. You are just being a hater and it's obvious.
jerry
the hater thing isn’t working. the numbers you posted at .400” on that one port is 242 before port match and 243 after…essentially zero like I said. that’s the port that gained 11 at .200”. you also do not average two totally different flowing ports then say, look , they gained flow …when one didn’t gain at .400”
at .400” is where the port entrance starts to make a difference….that’s a fact.
I have velocity probes ..what I also use is a decibel meter. I quiet port is a happy port where flow is more uniform and not pulsing or having some weird things going on. You’re right about the port floor having more velocity than the roof,, but, that’s on the flow bench, not on a running engine where the intake manifold plays the key roll.
when using a Victor single plane, the port flow bias is from the top short side inner walls on all 8, then it crosses over mid port …way different than what happens on something like a stock factory dual plane where the port is very low at the entrance, especially in the 4 low ports. when using a Victor, I epoxy the floor entrance and raise the roof as much as possible the get rid of the downward hook..that’s what high rise needs.
heads need different porting techniques depending on the intake used…saying the floor is where velocity is always high is dead wrong…except on a flow bench.
when I do my putty at the entrance, I use a 1/2” radius form I made. It’s easy and quick, and the same every time. I’ve seen some pretty awful looking putty jobs that look like a child did it..that kind of mess will screw up #s on the high end. you don’t need no 3D printed form …most port entrances would end up being different anyway.
you keep saying over and over to me that flow is not the be all to end all …,, can you show me where I said it was? I’ve never said it was ..ever. maybe you were thinking of someone else, because it sure wasn’t me.
If anyone is interested in learning, google this video from Gold’s Garage. it shows how a significant blockage of the port entrance from a gasket that was blocking the entrance has no affect on low lift flow .
yet pickup significantly in the upper lift range when fixed …no change in the .200” numbers. this is what I’ve also found because it’s fact based and proven .
Bill little runs a pretty successful small block Olds 350 Super Stocker. he does his own heads and build his own engines.
Great article, if we were in a Chevelle forum; however, this is an Oldsmobile forum. Regardless you can see that the gasket is blocking the top of the port and having no impact on airflow... I would like to see the same test performed with the gasket blocking the bottom of the port. Since you have a flow-bench please generate and provide this data. Preferably on an Oldsmobile engine since that is the topic of conversation.
Great article, if we were in a Chevelle forum; however, this is an Oldsmobile forum. Regardless you can see that the gasket is blocking the top of the port and having no impact on airflow... I would like to see the same test performed with the gasket blocking the bottom of the port. Since you have a flow-bench please generate and provide this data. Preferably on an Oldsmobile engine since that is the topic of conversation.
the make of the head doesn’t matter…it’s a port.
how can you say the gasket blocking the port had no impact on flow?? are you blind? There was a 34 cfm gain at peak lift AFTER cutting out the gasket protrusion. Didn’t you hear him say “there was no gain under .200” “ like he expected, no gain.
it started to gain at .300” on up…nothing below that. I’ve found that to be true of all heads,,Olds Included.
Last edited by CANADIANOLDS; Jun 30, 2025 at 12:52 PM.
how can you say the gasket blocking the port had no impact on flow?? are you blind? There was a 34 cfm gain at peak lift AFTER cutting out the gasket protrusion. Didn’t you hear him say “there was no gain under .200” “ like he expected, no gain.
it started to gain at .300” on up…nothing below that. I’ve found that to be true of all heads,,Olds Included.
Ok so the low valve angle and inherent bad short side of the Olds head will respond EXACTLY the same as a Chevy. Got it.
