906 Head shop

-
1

1wild&crazyguy

Banned
Joined
Jul 11, 2009
Messages
7,751
Reaction score
237
Location
Surrounded by mopar
What kinds of numbers are any of you guys getting full porting a 906 head and still using the 2.08/1.74 valves?

I have a 906 that I have spent a lil time on 2 ports, I still need to do a valve job yet...but so far with brand new valve '2.08' im getting [email protected] lift

They peak just under .550 and flow ginormous in the low lift...

So what do you guys get?
 
You can't race flowbenches.

What kind of flow did you get from the stock port? Your % increase?

Do you have another benchmark? Like, have you tested a box stock Edelbrock Victor or a Performer RPM on the same bench?

Having said that, 2.08/298/.500, is quite good. Edelbrock advertises the 2.20 Victor at 298 cfm @ .500 and the 2.14 RPM at 278 cfm @ .500
 
Oh boy. Here we go.
 
1wild&crazyguy said:
What kinds of numbers are any of you guys getting full porting a 906 head and still using the 2.08/1.74 valves?

I have a 906 that I have spent a lil time on 2 ports, I still need to do a valve job yet...but so far with brand new valve '2.08' im getting [email protected] lift

They peak just under .550 and flow ginormous in the low lift...

So what do you guys get?
Click to expand...

You must have ported the crap out of them, I got 268 @ 550 with a 2.08 valve 906s & they were still strong at 600+ lift., The mopar guy who flowed them was quit impressed for a port job from a 1st. timer, The exhaust was in the mid-upper 1.90s @ 550 & still strong at .600

Not that i'm bragging (well maybe a little) but those heads went 123+ mph at 3100 lbs. race weight with a small solid, the guy who has it now installed a .590 & raised the shift points & alittle steeper gear, he's a big guy, the race weight with him was right around 3300 lbs., he ran 125 mph with 3 weak cylinders, by the 3rd. run it was smoking, but heck, those rings had a good 300 hard passes on them.
 
1wild&crazyguy said:
What kinds of numbers are any of you guys getting full porting a 906 head and still using the 2.08/1.74 valves?

I have a 906 that I have spent a lil time on 2 ports, I still need to do a valve job yet...but so far with brand new valve '2.08' im getting [email protected] lift

They peak just under .550 and flow ginormous in the low lift...

So what do you guys get?
Click to expand...

StrokerScamp said:
Oh boy. Here we go.
Click to expand...

moper said:
:yawinkle:
Click to expand...

"ginormous" huh?

Once, while flowing a particular set of heads, these guys managed to pull a "1/2-Wowwossie" but never even got a Full-Wowwossie.

I don't know a bench that will even go that high. You may have set an all time record with ginormous flows.
 
IQ52 said:
You can't race flowbenches.
Click to expand...

ya so don't test them no more your wasting time seeing your good results, just guess... that's what IQ52 does and he smokes everybody. nose what combo to use just looking at them...a regular engine Eisenstein. oh ya i raced a flow bench once and smoked it . i mean it just sat there. so you can race it but its a waste of time.

those are great numbers. typical for those head is about 260-275 @.500
 
the wall said:
ya so don't test them no more your wasting time seeing your good results, just guess... that's what IQ52 does and he smokes everybody. nose what combo to use just looking at them...a regular engine Eisenstein. oh ya i raced a flow bench once and smoked it . i mean it just sat there. so you can race it but its a waste of time.

those are great numbers. typical for those head is about 260-275 @.500
Click to expand...

That is pretty funny!

Keep up the good work Justin!
 
IQ52 said:
You can't race flowbenches.

What kind of flow did you get from the stock port? Your % increase?

Do you have another benchmark? Like, have you tested a box stock Edelbrock Victor or a Performer RPM on the same bench?

Having said that, 2.08/298/.500, is quite good. Edelbrock advertises the 2.20 Victor at 298 cfm @ .500 and the 2.14 RPM at 278 cfm @ .500
Click to expand...

my victors flowed (int) 327cfm @ .650 and (exh) 252cfm @ .650 with minor blending of the cast ports...
 

Attachments

  • 512 Stroker (4).jpg
    58.3 KB · Views: 657
  • 512 Stroker (29).JPG
    131.5 KB · Views: 661
Painted Victors. You sly dawg.
 
In my experience, the numbers you posted have never, ever been verifiably achieved with a 2.08 valve. Not by anyone I've ever spoken to or read about, anywhere. Even professional (well respected) iron head porters can't touch within 20cfm of your results with a 2.14 valve. No disrespect intended, but something isn't right. I dont run 2.08s. But typically I can get 250-260 at .500 with a back cut 2.14intake valve, a clay radius, and a 4.25 test bore. The performance of the car backed up these numbers. As I've said, I do not test my own heads and dont test every set. But that's my experience anyway.
 
moper said:
In my experience, the numbers you posted have never, ever been verifiably achieved with a 2.08 valve. Not by anyone I've ever spoken to or read about, anywhere. Even professional (well respected) iron head porters can't touch within 20cfm of your results with a 2.14 valve. No disrespect intended, but something isn't right. I dont run 2.08s. But typically I can get 250-260 at .500 with a back cut 2.14intake valve, a clay radius, and a 4.25 test bore. The performance of the car backed up these numbers. As I've said, I do not test my own heads and dont test every set. But that's my experience anyway.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you moper, That # is quit high for a 2.08 valve, Now a member on Moparts had a set of 906s that were "hogged" out literaly, i'm thinking 2.14 valves, the ports were extreamly thin, he showed me pix, They flowed right around .300, They spent alot of time on them, His car ran the #s for sure, 6.3s at around 109, He finally dropped a set of blended Eddys on it, Car ran faster, His porter told him it would because of the port design, With the cam he was running the 906s just couldn't keep up & stalled out, mine were in the .250 range at .500 lift, with a back cut, tailering the short turn, bowl blend beyound the MP templates quit a bit, alot of runner work, taking down the bosses, spent a good 25-30 hrs. on them, gained a solid .2 & 2 from stock, the valves already had the backcut, in the heat, car was running 11.0s @ 120-121 before the work, after the work car ran 10.8s @ 123+ with a lessor 60ft. in the same DA.
 
1wild&crazyguy said:
I want to know what the guy with the IQ of 52 gets from these, since that was the question.
Click to expand...

Nope, nope, I give up.

Racin' flowbenches at .500" lift with a 2.08 valve, YOU.....BEAT.....ME!

Now finish your heads and put them on an engine and we'll race DYNOS!
 
The original psoter didn't specify the mecury he flowed at ... 29?

Did you use the MP bowl porting templates? You DID slightly D shape the exh? Backcuts?

 
Problem is that different bench settings give different flow #s. Without stating YOUR merc (for example) there are no valid comparisons.

Only proper use for a flow bench is to equalize flows between ports and use as an indicator of higher or lower flow numbers

As stated earlier, flow numbers aren't even as useful as dyno numbers. Drag strip is where the comparisons are.
 
Oh how I agree with the comment above!

This is by no means the best overall 906 head we have ever produce, but it is the only one that I have with a record on the same flowbench, same head, same port, with a progression from stock valve through larger valves, stock untouched port through ported. These are all flows are at .500" lift. The first two are benchmarks so that we have something to compare the other flows to.

275 cfm..........Box stock Edelbrock Performer RPM 440 2.14 intake
224 cfm..........Stock unported 906 with the stock 2.08 valve
280 cfm..........Ported 906 with the 2.08 factory intake valve, same port as above, the #1 or #8, 280/224=25% increase from stock.
299 cfm..........Ported 906 with 2.14 intake valve, same port as above, 299/224=33% increase from stock.
302 cfm..........Ported 906 with 2.20 intake valve, same port as above, 302/224=35% increase from stock.

This is the most recent set of 906 heads (2.25 intake) we flowed: 91 cfm @ .100, 165 cfm @ .200", 219 cfm @ .300", 277 cfm @ .400", 299 cfm @ .500", 325 cfm @ .600", 335 cfm @ .700" and 339 cfm @ .800".

On 7/23/2011, those heads made 694 HP @ 6,900 rpm from a 451ci B-engine with 9.7:1 compression and a single 1050 cfm 4150 4bbl, 91 octane, all motor....no bottle, no boost.
 
Good numbers, thank you.

With that I confirmed my suspicion.

btw I get 228cfm @28 depression out of stock 906 port w/2.08, I live at 564ft and by the beach.fwiw

I thought I laid the sarcasm on thick enough in my 1st post with the 'ginormous' comment.
 
I have dealt with IQ52 a good bit, and have spoken with him several times on the phone, he's a good guy and knows his stuff. They don't invite jokers to the Amsoil engine challenges...
 
clovis said:
http://www.musclemotorsracing.com/muscle-mike-blog/119-cnc-ported-906-heads

I would say those numbers are not typical but they are attainable.

IQ52
What was the cam profile (lift/duration) on that monster? Even if your cam was .700 lift, you are almost 2.1 HP per cfm and with an open chamber, only 6900 rpms and not even 10.1 compression that is impressive.
Click to expand...

The boys at Erson Cams take pretty good care of me. Its an Erson solid roller, R304/510A intake lobe, R318/475S exhaust lobe, 112 LSA, 280/288 @ .050, .510"/.475" lobe lift, .790"/.734" net lift with 1.6 rockers. It was originally ground for a completely different application. It's what was conjured up for our Victor headed 500 ci 440 that made 845 HP on E85. It was back on the spare parts shelf so we pushed it in the 451 cam tunnel and gave it a whirl. Worked okay I guess.
 
IQ52 said:
Oh how I agree with the comment above!

This is by no means the best overall 906 head we have ever produce, but it is the only one that I have with a record on the same flowbench, same head, same port, with a progression from stock valve through larger valves, stock untouched port through ported. These are all flows are at .500" lift. The first two are benchmarks so that we have something to compare the other flows to.

275 cfm..........Box stock Edelbrock Performer RPM 440 2.14 intake
224 cfm..........Stock unported 906 with the stock 2.08 valve
280 cfm..........Ported 906 with the 2.08 factory intake valve, same port as above, the #1 or #8, 280/224=25% increase from stock.
299 cfm..........Ported 906 with 2.14 intake valve, same port as above, 299/224=33% increase from stock.
302 cfm..........Ported 906 with 2.20 intake valve, same port as above, 302/224=35% increase from stock.

This is the most recent set of 906 heads (2.25 intake) we flowed: 91 cfm @ .100, 165 cfm @ .200", 219 cfm @ .300", 277 cfm @ .400", 299 cfm @ .500", 325 cfm @ .600", 335 cfm @ .700" and 339 cfm @ .800".

On 7/23/2011, those heads made 694 HP @ 6,900 rpm from a 451ci B-engine with 9.7:1 compression and a single 1050 cfm 4150 4bbl, 91 octane, all motor....no bottle, no boost.
Click to expand...

On 9/21/11 we tried these same heads on a 500ci motor and ended up with a train wreck.

On Comp Cams dyno, somehow, the water never got turned into the engine. At about three minutes into the ring break-in, she made some really strange noises. The exhaust valves stuck to the bronze guides and the guides were moving up and down with the valves, 15 of 16 valves were out of round, one bent pushrod and ruined adjuster.
351WFord2011EngineChallenge092.jpg


Pulled the heads, knocked out the valves and guides, knurled the guides and punched them back in. Reamed the guides and reinstalled the valves. Replaced the pushrod and adjuster. Without retouching the heads or valves seats and with leakdown percentages past the rings, intake and exhaust valves, at 7%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 23%, 30%, 32%, 56%, it made 730 HP on 93 Octane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top