I'm just trying to find out ALL the info I can on these engines so I can see
where I need to beef it up. Can anyone show guide me to a reliable source
or tell me what the intake and exhaust flow #'s were for a 1970 Rocket 350
set of heads?

Trying to find out where my limitations are so I can price out parts.

 

I've seen flow numbers for BB heads. Probably because the racers prefer the BB over the SB Olds. I found some info. a while back, but I believe these are ported and not stock heads.

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm#Olds

 

Then you need to purchase the "Mondello Oldsmobile V-8 tecnical reference manual".
http://mondellotwister.com/99cat.html

Good info, I do not buy parts from THIS company.

#6 heads (stock) show about 190 cfm @.600 lift.
These can be professionally ported to flow 270 on the intake side with large valves.
NOT CHEAP.
Edelbrock heads will bolt on (flow about 240 on intake side) but you need real pistons to make compression, no mechanical fuel pump fits, and you must run an intake witha higher port (RPM, or Victor).
Smitty @M&J performance can make these flow 340 cfm, for about $3500, from what I remember.
http://www.mjproformance.com/

If you find flow numbers on ANYTHING that says "Mid America Performance"- DO NOT BELIEVE IT.
They threw out BULLSHYT NUMBERS for years. NOT RIGHT.

Jim

 

That helps ALOT......thank you very much.

So if I am reading that right, for #6 heads (1970) According to this sheet > http://www.oldspower.com/vb/showthread.php?t=11921

These heads can push up to 479hp with .600 lift cam installed (radical) and flow 233 intake and 153 exhaust ???
I have a feeling I'm not reading this correctly.......I am new at doing this so I'm trying to understand it. So bear with me.

Why isn't it showing 64 combustion chamber size since that is what it is, or is that not pertinent to what the heads can do??

 

Okay.....but I have no real source of info....online anyways.
I guess I will purchase that catalog then.

Who MAKES these stock Rocket 350 heads for 1970 ??

 

Because the chambers are 68 cc's, stock. More junk info from 442.com? UHHHG!
Get the catalog, there is a lot of GOOD information in there that Joe Mondello himself compiled over 30+ years.
Oldsmobile made them, you have to look for a set.
Jim

 

I have no idea where they sourced that info from.....

But I'm shocked that these cars are 40 years + old and the information
is just not readily available online at all between 3 Olds forums.

 

These were my 7a Head flow numbers for a good baseline.
Intake Flow #s (stock)

.100- (50)
.200- (105)
.300- (148)
.400- (170)
.500- (180)

Exhaust Valve Flow #s (stock)
.100- (40)
.200- (75)
.300- (105)
.400- (135)
.500- (145)

 

The #6 heads off my original motor were 70 ccs untouched. Both sets of #7s I had were 69 ccs.

 

THANKS!!! Wow......these really do suck. LMAO
I'm sure since the 7a's were pre-emissions as well these are
probably DAMN close to what the 6's put out. Looks like either
Edelbrock heads are in my future ......or a Gen III drivetrain.

 

i wish i could tell joe mondello that he is slipping, becuase the chrome baffled valve covers i bought from him dont fit my motor...

edit: yes i know its not personally his fault.

 

Here's the edelbrock numbers.
Keep in mind that these are 77cc chambers and will not work with a mechanical fuel pump without lengthy modification.

Lift Intake valve Exhaust valve
.100 80 63
.200 148 105
.300 203 138
.400 237 166
.500 251 175
.600 251 175


In my opinion, you can make a stock head flow what an edelbrock does with bigger valves, a bowl blend, and a nice valve job. Plus keep your chamber size down.

 

Okay.....but here's the million dollar question.....

COST to port + polish IRON heads isn't cheap, 3 angle valve jobs, or 5 angle
plus ALL the whatever else the assembled Edelbrock heads comes with....

I'd really like to see confirmation of this, but obviously WEIGHT savings of the
aluminum heads is to be considered as well.....not HUGE by any means, but
not barely noticable either. I'm curious now what the work would cost for
the existing heads plus the new valvetrain components.

I'm sure I'm looking at $3,000+ to do the heads, cam, valvetrain to hydraulic roller.

 

Okay.....but here's the million dollar question.....

COST to port + polish IRON heads isn't cheap, 3 angle valve jobs, or 5 angle
plus ALL the whatever else the assembled Edelbrock heads comes with....

I'd really like to see confirmation of this, but obviously WEIGHT savings of the
aluminum heads is to be considered as well.....not HUGE by any means, but
not barely noticable either. I'm curious now what the work would cost for
the existing heads plus the new valvetrain components.

I'm sure I'm looking at $3,000+ to do the heads, cam, valvetrain to hydraulic roller.
BTW - What is the compression ratio for the 350's ???

I have Desktop Dyno open right next to me and the only way i can get a 68cc setting is by putting 11.5 compression.

 

I don't think Edelbrocks come with even a 3 angle valve job.

 

If you have the extra cash, get the Ebrocks. You can port the crap out of those too.

They won't fit on small blocks correctly though.

I saw you had a 442 tribute going, and thought I'd mention the irons.

 

Let's back up a tad, what exactly are you looking to do, performance-wise? Street car, street/strip, are manners important, power brakes, pump gas? Don't get caught up in head flow and HP numbers, IMO they are not all that important. Olds engines are not Chebbies, they don't need 6500 rpm and 4.10 gears to be fun to drive. They are low rpm torque engines that are responsive and reliable.

 

Right now ?? Family cruiser.....street car with some grunt but good MPG.
I know if I go BBO , forget the mpg.....

I think I want to price out rebuilding a 455 or Rocket 350.
I'm thinking of buying a clunker 455, tearing it down, sending the parts out
to a machine shop, replacing everything needed. Cam, Pistons, lifters, valvetrain,
at the very least with Hydraulic Roller or Hydraulic.....but I
am trying to build a list of machine shop prices......and I already know a
complete rebuild kit with pistons is roughly $500 + machine shop work
+ cam and valvetrain , but I have no idea what ballpark I'm in for final $ yet.

I know 455's make sick amounts of torque when built even with a low budget.
But.....I want something that gets somewhat DECENT mpg so I can enjoy driving
it with the family. I already know these boats don't do too well for what I'm looking
for in the 1/4, so it's not my main concern as it's going to be a family cruiser for me.

That's why I'm stuck on stupid debating between an ULTRA cruiser with awesome MPG
and an LS2 powerplant.......or getting a 455 block and going that route......or beefing
up the Rocket 350. Another old timer on my 2nd gen Camaro forum told me to stay
away from 455 Olds motors and said the Rocket 350 is a much more reliable and desirable
motor.

 

The following is strictly my opinion. For your goals head flow numbers are meaningless. You have the 350, it can be built to run high 13s/low 14s, be dead nuts reliable, and get 18 mpg. Hydraulic rollers are nice, but expensive. Here is what I would do.
Bore the engine .030 and use 6cc speed pro pistons. Deck the block .015, use a standard head gasket, Cr should be around 9.6 to 1. Rework the rods, grind or polish the cam as needed. A good 3 angle valve job with a bowl blend, guide liners, and hardened seats will be all you need for head work. Get a cam ground to your engine specs ( one with an intake duration of 215 @ .050 should be about right), an RPM intake, Q-jet done up by a pro, and 1 3/4" headers with a good dual system. The engine should run you around $3500. Get a good converter from Hughes, Coan, etc, rebuild the trans, and a set of 3.23 gears. Car should flirt with 14.0s with good tune and traction, be fun to drive, reliable, and get reasonable mileage. My .02

 

To be quite honest.....I think I'm already there.

This engine has been rebuilt and has a great amount of torque already.
So I'm thinking it's already pushing the 310hp and 380ft lbs range.,....or close.
Obviously I'm guessing.....only a dyno will tell the tale, but I'm not new to classics.

It's not a 260hp V8, that's something I'm absolutely positive of.
According to the Drag 2003 software for the weight and shape of this super aerodynamic disco brick (lol)
It's putting the car into the low 14's already. I have 18" rims on 9.5" rear rims too.

I'm just not happy with that.....I have a 380hp LS1 in my 78 Camaro ....so I'm
kinda spoiled and looking for more. ..lol

 

Combustion chamber volume has little (if any) effect on head flow, and a lot to do with the static compression ratio.

Dyno sheets will only tell part of it.

Time slips will tell it all.

Norm

 

I'm STILL trying to learn this aspect of the engine builds.
Haven't mastered this yet to be honest.

Yeah well, that all depends on the drivers performance too.....
So I wouldn't say it tells all.

I took my Hayabusa to the track and did absolutely horrible with it.
Couldn't launch hard enough I guess.....

 

A good dyno is supposed to adjust weather conditions to sea level. We have been running my car in 2000-2800' adjusted altitude this year. Rough figuring is one tenth for every 1000' of adjustes altitude. There are many other factors involved also. Traction, right convertor, suspension to name a few. On a good day I can look at my weather station and predict what it will run as long as the track doesn't change. So which actually is right......take your pick.

 

As Nick states ^^^^^^ there is so much more to an ET than HP and weight. A couple of years ago they ran a big race in Bradenton, which is basically at sea level. A front had just gone through, there was a 25 mph tail wind and -1800 DA! Plus, they resurfaced the track. Something like 23 world records fell. Many guys overlook suspension when putting together a car.

 

Wrong again Norm, if you have a smaller combustion chamber it can shroud the valves more than having a larger one, therefore negatively affecting flow. Ask any reputable head porter. That's why canted valve heads typically flow more than non canted as well. As the valve opens it actually is moving farther away from the side of the combustion chamber more towards the center of the cylinder, totally uncovering part of the valve perimeter, enhancing flow. The more vertical valve angle of the Olds has the valve running almost parallel to the side of the combustion chamber during opening. It stays shrouded for a much higher percentage of the total lift amount. Therefore if you have a valve shrouded by a combustion chamber wall it will have a negative affect on flow vs one that may have the wall farther away from the valve perimeter.

 

Different topic.

Norm

 

Looks like a simple enough statement.

We shall see.

Let us take a closer look:

If you still see an error, explain it to me in a PM.

Norm

 

Don't need to, you said "has little effect". It can and will have more than "little effect". how do you know it will have "little effect (if any). Have you done/seen flow numbers small vs. larger chamber? Again ask any reputable head porter.

I knew you'd twist it. Again I think I've made my point.

 

Example to prove that your theory is incorrect.
So it's applicable.
380 racer and Classicefi are on target with what they said

 

[quote=88 coupe;97575]Looks like a simple enough statement.

From a simple enough mind!


We shall see.


Let us take a closer look:

Yes why don't you?


If you still see an error, explain it to me in a PM.

I'm done explaining things to you Norm. Your pea brain doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept. Not my problem.



AcesHigh- ask a reputable head porter or vendors on this site and I'm confident you'll get the info you're looking for.

 

"The combustion chamber has an effect upon the breathing potential of an engine. The shape can be modified to increase the flow of the air fuel mixture throughout the engine."

from here,
http://www.amacengineering.co.uk/Eng...eadPorting.htm

Nice read about chamber design

http://www.highperformancepontiac.co...ber/index.html

There is a ton of info online if you want to do the research.