Long valves on W2's with .600 lift?

-
SSG_Karg said:
any #s yet?

:popcorn:
Click to expand...
Nope... too busy with work. 14 hour days are killing me.

Tried to go to the speed shop on Monday but my car wasn't up to it. I loaned it to my grandson for an errand...he made it about one mile and the car quit moving. Trying to get an idea of what's wrong from a 19 year old with zero mechanical ability was frustrating. Sounded like an old problem resurfaced... bad MAF sensor. I asked "engine running?"...his reply "how can I tell?". So I came out to to get him going again but the issue was the transmission was empty!

Found the two "hoses" that were scabbed on the trans cooler lines sometime in the past had come loose. Never had an issue before. When I was headed home to fetch some trans fluid I saw the problem... a big splatter of oil at the stop sign and a trail of oil all the way back to the car.

My Buick has a broken motor mount. Never is an issue during normal driving. I guess he must have tried to "peel out" and the engine lifted off the mount and pulled off those hoses. Seven... count 'em...SEVEN quarts later it's back on the raod. And working OK.

Guess it's time to install the new mount that's been on the shelf since July!
 
Bummer about the Buick - hope the trans isn’t roached.
I just had my W2s flowed today. I have to say I’m pretty disappointed in the results. 3 years ago I paid a guy local to me that has been porting heads for 40 years $500 to port my W2s and he gave me a sheet that said they went 316/235 cfm @700. I was a little skeptical of the numbers because they were just hand written on some notebook paper and I didn’t witness the test. Well today I took them to a different shop and watched the entire process. This is what we got...:wtf:

9C85A5D0-EE6B-47E4-9563-7FC27BD005AB.jpeg
 
SSG_Karg said:
Bummer about the Buick - hope the trans isn’t roached.
I just had my W2s flowed today. I have to say I’m pretty disappointed in the results. 3 years ago I paid a guy local to me that has been porting heads for 40 years $500 to port my W2s and he gave me a sheet that said they went 316/235 cfm @700. I was a little skeptical of the numbers because they were just hand written on some notebook paper and I didn’t witness the test. Well today I took them to a different shop and watched the entire process. This is what we got...:wtf:

View attachment 1715453721
Click to expand...


What size intake valve. I'm betting it's a 2.02 and the dude did a fluff and buff.

That may not be all bad. If he didn't know what he was doing, he could have done much, much worse.

If that's on a 2.08 valve, they need some help.
 
yellow rose said:
What size intake valve. I'm betting it's a 2.02 and the dude did a fluff and buff.

That may not be all bad. If he didn't know what he was doing, he could have done much, much worse.

If that's on a 2.08 valve, they need some help.
Click to expand...

2.08/1.60
The guy that flowed them for me the second time pointed out a few spots I could work on so I may try to touch them up a bit. He said port velocity was good all through the lift range. They just seemed to stall at .500 for some reason.
 
SSG_Karg said:
Bummer about the Buick - hope the trans isn’t roached.
I just had my W2s flowed today. I have to say I’m pretty disappointed in the results. 3 years ago I paid a guy local to me that has been porting heads for 40 years $500 to port my W2s and he gave me a sheet that said they went 316/235 cfm @700. I was a little skeptical of the numbers because they were just hand written on some notebook paper and I didn’t witness the test. Well today I took them to a different shop and watched the entire process. This is what we got...:wtf:

View attachment 1715453721
Click to expand...

$500 to port iron heads is cheap. You watched the second test? Did the operator use an intake orifice plate and an exhaust tube? What did the previous porter use? I've seen 30 cfm difference with clay diameters and shapes.
 
This is exactly why I wouldn’t buy used heads them imported. It never ceases to amaze me how much people ask for used heads. They are a pig in a poke. They may be irreversibly damaged.
 
IQ52 said:
You watched the second test? Did the operator use an intake orifice plate and an exhaust tube?
Click to expand...
Yes, I watched the second test. He used a ring of clay around the intake port that was about 3/4” thick. No exhaust pipe was used.

IQ52 said:
What did the previous porter use?
Click to expand...
Not sure what the the original porter used, if anything. What made me suspicious initially was when I went to pick up the heads, I asked about the flow sheet. He said “Oh yeah, almost forgot.” He then proceeded to whip out a notebook and began to write all the numbers down without looking at anything else. Now either he had a photographic memory or he was pulling numbers out his ***.
I did physically see he had a Superflow bench in the corner and it was lit up and looked operational.

Now what confuses me is during the second flow test, he had the lift cranked to .700 and was digging around in the port with these little dingle balls on a stick trying to figure out if the guy just hogged them out too far. The dingle ball didn’t make much difference but a couple times he put the tip of his thumb near the edge of the port window and the flow jumped to 305ish. What’s the deal with that?
 
SSG_Karg said:
Yes, I watched the second test. He used a ring of clay around the intake port that was about 3/4” thick. No exhaust pipe was used.


Not sure what the the original porter used, if anything. What made me suspicious initially was when I went to pick up the heads, I asked about the flow sheet. He said “Oh yeah, almost forgot.” He then proceeded to whip out a notebook and began to write all the numbers down without looking at anything else. Now either he had a photographic memory or he was pulling numbers out his ***.
I did physically see he had a Superflow bench in the corner and it was lit up and looked operational.

Now what confuses me is during the second flow test, he had the lift cranked to .700 and was digging around in the port with these little dingle balls on a stick trying to figure out if the guy just hogged them out too far. The dingle ball didn’t make much difference but a couple times he put the tip of his thumb near the edge of the port window and the flow jumped to 305ish. What’s the deal with that?
Click to expand...


LOL. That's why I say the flow numbers coming off the bench aren't nearly as important as what you learn by testing with the bench.

Could be several reasons why his thumb at the edge of the port made a difference. When you are at that point, you put the intake on a flow it. You'd be surprised what that will change.

Also, I don't get too excited about the port tipping over at .500 as you can put the intake manifold on and it probably won't do it. You can fix some of it.

The question is this...is 28 inches of water is the correct test pressure at all lifts????
 
Well I got to the shop today to pickup my W2 head. Here's the flow #'s.


dateposted-public

The intake stalled at 294 cfm...the exhaust at 230 cfm. Used clay on the intake for a radius and a short, curved pipe on the exhaust.

All things considered I'm OK with those numbers. Porters I have spoken with say they need to square off the ports and really dig to get 310-320 cfm out of these heads. Then I recently read a tech article that discussed taking iron square port BBC heads and getting better flow when they OVAL the ports. Oh boy...

When discussing flow and lift a few years ago with Mike Jones @ Jones Cams he suggested a cam with a .565 lift as I recall. This morning Mike S., who flowed my head, told me to stay at .600 or less. Said .565-.570 is what he'd recommend. After so many years of just using a cam based on experience and a recommendation or two I can see where I used a bunch of them that were way too big for the heads I ran.

I recall using a .600 lift/260@.050 cam in my 351C 2V heads. I know for sure those were 50 CFM shy of these W-2's.

What's odd, or maybe not odd, I know guys running Brodix spec heads (SBC) that flow less than what I have and they are running lifts in the .650 to .700 range. 650 HP-ish. Maybe that's why they aren't fast enough to break away from the pack... don't know.
 
Last edited:
Krooser said:
Well I got to the shop today to pickup my W2 head. Here's the flow #'s.


dateposted-public

The intake stalled at 294 cfm...the exhaust at 230 cfm. All things considered I OK with those numbers. Porters I have spoken with say they need to square off the ports and really dig to get 310-320 cfm out of these heads. Then I recently read a tech article that discussed taking iron square port BBC heads and getting better flow when they OVAL the ports. Oh boy...

When discussing flow and lift a few years ago with Mike Jones @ Jones Cams he suggested a cam with a .565 lift as I recall. This morning Mike S., who flowed my head, told me to stay at .600 or less. Said .565-.570 is what he'd recommend. After so many years of just using a cam based on experience and a recommendation or two I can see where I used a bunch of them that were way too big for the heads I ran.

I recall using a .600 lift/260@.050 cam in my 351C 2V heads. I know for sure those were 50 CFM shy of these W-2's.

What's odd, or maybe not odd, I know guys running Brodix spec heads that flow less than what I have and they are running lifts in the .650 to .700 range. 650 HP-ish. Maybe that's why they aren't fast enough to break away from the pack... don't know.
Click to expand...



Making the ports square is a nasty job. BTDT. The results are certainly worth the effort if you need the cross section area.

I'd disagree with the lift that low. I'm not nearly as concerned with the flow stall or even break over. I'm betting if you put the intake manifold on and flow it, the flow will be lower, but much less turbulent.

Also, the argument can be made that flowing the port at higher valve lifts at 28 inches (or higher) may not be as telling as one may think. I'm all for running the test pressure as high as you can, and doing what you can to increase flow at those pressures, or atleast reduce the turbulence/noise, but...I'm not so sure that the port sees that pressure drop at higher valve lifts.

Maybe the port only sees 22 inches above .400 lift (pulling numbers out of my hat here but you get the point) and at that pressure drop, maybe the port isn't nearLy as bad as it looks at 28 inches. We do know that at overlap and the low lift at that point that you can get a pressure drop of near 100 inches or maybe even more. One reason why I think a 50 degree seat (or even steeper) may look bad at 28 inches, but when you crank the test pressure up it looks much better than flatter seat angles.

One last thing...when you flow average verses lift, you'll see that higher net lifts gain you more time at higher flow rates.

This was a HUGE issue I had with Brookshire. He was dead set on .640 gross lift on my W2 stuff. I made more power when I changed cams and on that stuff I ended up at just under .700 lift net. With the same heads. So I wouldn't base my lift requirements just on flow at 28 inches alone.
 
.550 lift - .018 lash - whatever you lose from pushrod geometry doesn’t leave you with alot.
I would go .650+ so that the valves spend more time at .600 which is where your power is made.
 
mbaird said:
.550 lift - .018 lash - whatever you lose from pushrod geometry doesn’t leave you with alot.
I would go .650+ so that the valves spend more time at .600 which is where your power is made.
Click to expand...

I'll likely usethe biggest pushrods I can fit so I won't lose much from flex. Remember these heads have offset rockers which removes most of the monkey motion Ma Mopar put into her small block valvetrain.

The other issue with a .650 lift is finding the correct springs that I want to use. My Crowers that were on this will go to .650 I believe but I want to go to a beehive or conical spring... lighter rate and better spring control at speed. I still have to work out exactly what I want. Thinking of PAC 1218X's.
 
Krooser said:
I'll likely usethe biggest pushrods I can fit so I won't lose much from flex. Remember these heads have offset rockers which removes most of the monkey motion Ma Mopar put into her small block valvetrain.

The other issue with a .650 lift is finding the correct springs that I want to use. My Crowers that were on this will go to .650 I believe but I want to go to a beehive or conical spring... lighter rate and better spring control at speed. I still have to work out exactly what I want. Thinking of PAC 1218X's.
Click to expand...
My ported econos flowed about the same as yours. Are these going on a stroker or what?
 
So I'm thinking of
abodyjim said:
My ported econos flowed about the same as yours. Are these going on a stroker or what?
Click to expand...
Going in my dirt late model... 3.79 x 4.040. 387 cubes (or 383/388/409/225...whatever your calculator sez!).
 
So I'm thinking of cam lift around .600-ish. I have a cam recommendation request sent to Jones and Howard's. Jones because his stuff is good and Howard's since they are local.

Howard's has a nice grind with .599/.619 specs on a 106 LC ground on a .904 friendly core. Not a catalog item anymore but it should be available on a special order. I may order two cams and make a switch on Dyno day.

I weighed some valves this week...all 2.02 in 4.90/5.140/5.165 lengths (what I had on the shelf).

The 8mm stem Magnum valve is 120 grams. The 11/32 stem is 125 grams while the 3/8 stem is 140. I thought the 8mm would be much lighter...I'd use those but the retainers and locks are more expensive than the others by a bunch...at least in the tool steel or forged steel lines.

I guess the 11/32 wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top