Here is a quck summary of what is covered in this shorter write up.

Exhaust crossover testing
Testing the stock 1970 W-30 engine
Comparisons of above engine to other stock headed pulls
W-30 engine with simple bolt ons
L69 Tri-Power testing
Superflow air flow hat testing
PDD ported Edelbrock Gen 3 flow numbers
Head development
Conclusions
What are we testing next

Again, if anyone ever wants to help, please let know. My e-mail is jerry@tandjw.com. I am headed up to continue testing on 9/13 and will stop on the afternoon of 9/17.

jerry

 

Always great info! Thank you.

 

Thanks for posting!

 

Awesome info as usual, Jerry. To your question about how the J-hose was run on the Tri-Carb cars, keep in mind that in 1966 Olds was still using the die cast t-stat housing and the rubber J-tube bypass hose. Since the housing was pushed forward on the tri-carb intake, the bypass hose was molded to swap ports on the water pump with the heater return hose.

 

Thanks for posting.
What I find interesting is that the stock C heads flowed similarly or slightly better than the E head on the flow bench, but were way down on HP/TQ when dyno tested . The F head and E head flowed similarly at .300 and above lift on the flow bench and had near identical HP /TQ numbers. The under .200 lift numbers did not appear to impact the E heads. Do you plan to test any stock Ka heads, it would be interesting to see if they perform as well as F and E heads.

__________________
Defender of the 400 G

 

Right now we do not plan to. I have one Ka head that Joe Padavano let us borrow to flow test. I assume he has the other one. If there was enough interest to test it, we'd need how to figure out how to get it up to us. It's literally a couple of hours to swap parts and try it, so I'm not opposed to it. I'm not opposed to running any combination that we have parts for if it makes sense.

jerry

 

As another note, with respect to head flow, the floor of the both intake and exhaust ports changed, starting with the E castings and beyond (meaning E, F, G, Ga, i assume H, J, and Ka). When you look at all the cylinder heads we have flowed, and most are still at Livernois, all the ports look pretty much identical from A to D. But you can tell the ports changed in E, but all the E through Ka look the same. I think the flow data shows this, although one thing all this testing has taught us is that flow is NOT everything. I think there are really basically two ports for big block Olds heads. If anything I'd rather dyno some older heads, with the "original" port design. I do think Ron has a pair of stock A or B heads......But for the little time it takes, I'd do both if we had parts.

jerry

 

Jerry, I have a set of stock A's but the shipping from Oregon would be a big number. Considering they would be way heavier that the tunnel ram shipping....

 

Ron has a set of A heads that he will bring up on Monday. They are bare but I have a lot of valves and springs.

so I think we will at least do that.

jerry

 

Great info as always Jerry! But a few points;
Dick Miller always claimed filling crossovers etc was worth about 15hp. I guess he was wrong in a bad way. But I’ve always been a proponent of that exercise.
Peyton states his heads flow 340@.800, your numbers don’t confirm that, and I know flow benches differ. But did you see any areas for further improvement on those?
Lastly, I’m not sure your test combination will yield an 80hp increase from his heads. But why do think that will happen?
Thanks in advance.

 

To be honest I am shocked at how much power the cross over modifications made. We did run an HEI with weights and springs during the initial 100ish dyno pulls. But, I always checked the WOT timing so I am certain it was right. I could explain mid range RPM as our timing there is more optimized than with the HEI. This is part of the reason we are going to run a set of A heads that Ron has, just to see if the initial pulls were correct.

Our numbers didn't confirm 340 CFM at 0.800. I like to use 0.600" lift because that's the max most Olds cams run (I have one that's 0.688/0.688 and another that's 0.755/0.688, but you don't see this much normally). Our testing, and I have NOT talked to Peyton, and I will, showed that his heads went sonic/turbulant just over 0.700" lift. This is pretty common in the Edelbrock type of heads. Dave (unbelievable smart cylinder head dude at Livernois) says that the problem is that all the flow wants to be on one certain side of the port before it makes the turn down to the valve. He had the same problem when he was working on the Speedmaster's that's he's doing for us. He proved this with a velocity tube, really a velocity pressure tube. Once the air speed gets too high, it will stop flowing air. So he made the port "worse" where all the air wanted to flow to force the air to use more of the port. The port he's working on for us had the same issue. I talked to him today and he got the port to still increase flow all the way up to 0.900" lift and not go sonic. This is still flowing about 325 cfm. Now he's going to work on the valve job to get the last 10-15 CFM that's still in the head, as determined by the flow with the valve flipped upside down.

Honestly, if you want to learn a few things about cylinder heads, come on up one test session, you can stay at the house me and my sister own there, and you can talk to Dave and see him work on some of these heads. I won't make you work on the engine, I promise. He is a very soft spoken, incredibly smart guy when it comes to this stuff. You probably need to hang out for a day or two to absorb enough. I am going to ask him to port the E's we have. They are iron, and he has not wanted to do iron heads in the past, but I may be able to talk him into it. I'd like to see a comparison between the ported C's, which flow well, and set of ported E's or newer.

Now, we will test Peytons heads with 1.6 and 1.7 ratio rockers with a cam that's 0,.595" lift with a 1.6. This will give us 0.632" lift. If this is still good, we may put the 0.688 cam that I have in just to see if we lose power with more lift.

My 80HP was based on his flow numbers and comparing them to the CFM ported Gen 2's, which flowed 290 CFM at 0.600". The Superflow 600 at Livernois showed his heads were 316 at 0.600". This is a 26 CFM improvement. So I'd expect to see more 50ish HP improvement over stock Gen3's. We MAY see 10 more HP with 1.7 rockers if the heads don't go sonic. But ask me Tuesday or Wednesday and I'll know for sure, hopefully. I am certain we can make well over 600 HP with his ported Gen3's, but with a different cam, intake and probably headers.

jerry

 

Jerry, What do you need to run the Batten heads? I have one Batten adapter for Exhaust side of head. Second adapter can easily be made from this one original, John

 

The issue with one of the sets of Battens that I have is this; Someoneodofed them for Jessel valvetrain. While Jessel probably made parts for these, they don’t know. So the pushrod holes were drilled since the rocker is closer to the intake. The pushrods were hitting the heads and the epoxy they used was very old and brittle.

i have all the parts, just need some time to cut the sleeves for the pushrod holes and epoxy them in place.

jerey

 

Mark,

This was Rev1 of our new 320cfm program for the 61025. Not the 340cfm program.