Ported Edelbrock versus W2 out of the box !

-
Flowbenchnumbers are just numbers unless you are comparing numbers of the same bench.
If i had the choice betwen any stockreplacement style head and a W2,wait what was the question again?
A well done W2 will eat it alive.
 
Duane said:
My dart used to run 11:20s with ootb w2.
Click to expand...

My Dart( 3300 with my 320 behind the wheel) runs 11.20’s with eddies a local buddy lightly ported in a single evening after supper. Bone stock 360 shortblock. Stock rods, crank, 30 over cast factory replacement pistons 28 in the hole.
Dual plane.4.10 gear, small 1 5/8 headers with muffs shifting at 6 grand
 
rumblefish360 said:
Hey Duane!
Can you list up the weights and combo?
Click to expand...
Well that was a long time ago, but as best I can recall 14x32 slick,
344 cubic inch, 5:38 rear gear, .630 lift roller, 904 with low gear and aluminum drum,10.9 compression, 1 7/8 heddman header, w2 strip dominator.
Never had the car weighed but all fiberglass front end, gutted interior, fiberglass rear bumper, 250 pound driver.
 
pittsburghracer said:
A simple rule for me and something I look at when someone posts flow numbers. If I don't see 200 plus cfm at .300 it won't go on any of my engines. Small block rule for me.
Click to expand...
I read an article in engine masters one time and the very successful small block builder was talking about the success of the w2 and its progression to the Indy 360-1s and he said it was not the peak flow numbers that made the w2 great, but it's low lift flow numbers that were impressive and the optimum port size that generated very good port velocity(torque) at low lifts. Ryan at Shady dell recently explained to me that the w2 in a max effort makes more horsepower than its flow numbers would indicate in comparison to other more modern heads.
 
Duane said:
I read an article in engine masters one time and the very successful small block builder was talking about the success of the w2 and its progression to the Indy 360-1s and he said it was not the peak flow numbers that made the w2 great, but it's low lift flow numbers that were impressive and the optimum port size that generated very good port velocity(torque) at low lifts. Ryan at Shady dell recently explained to me that the w2 in a max effort makes more horsepower than its flow numbers would indicate in comparison to other more modern heads.
Click to expand...


When I opened the box on a Friend of mine W2 heads years ago and flow tested them I couldn’t believe it. 260 cfm at .450 lift is crazy good for a 30 plus year old head out of the box. They fell off after that but was easily fixed with some port work.
 
Thanks Duane.

Anytime I talk to a engine builder they always had good things to say about the W2 being a pretty good head. Aside from weight, the valve train is the draw back in its price. Guys that drive the street & at a Regular street use would find this a bit expensive. But worth the cost in the long run of your racing.

The head is old and it is amazing IMO that it is still offered in 2018 considering it came out in 1974
Or 76? Ether date, that’s a long run. I hope they never stop making that head.
 
Slight hijack......
The tale of two flow benches.......
Similar capacity benches, operating on the same basic design, but not the same bench manufacturer.

Intake:
Lift———A/B
.100—-70.5/67.5
.200—139.1/142.8
.300—203.2/207.6
.400—237.5/241.2
.500—252.8/256.1
.600—255.5/260.6

Exhaust:
Lift——- A/B
.100—-76.1/57.1
.200—124.3/111.0
.300—159.3/150.0
.400—177.4/167.1
.500—179.3/170.8
.600—181.4/174.4

What’s interesting to me is one bench shows higher on the intake, the other shows higher on the exhaust.
The other thing is, the low lift exhaust flow on bench A is in la-la land(why would the exhaust outflow the intake port at that lift, with its 14.5% less flow area?)
On the intakes, the two benches are within 2-2.5% at all lifts.
On the exhaust there is a 33% discrepancy at .100 lift, and 12% at .200 lift....... tapering off to 4.5% at .600 lift.
The intake curves would be very close, the exhaust not so much.

But, to bring it back on topic....... if all you’re looking to do is build a 408-422” stroker to make 575hp or less, i’ll take the “cheaper and easier to get parts for, closed chamber for good quench, doesnt need expensive offset rockers, uses normal headers” RPM heads.
 
Last edited:
Edelbrocks are a pretty good head considering they are a stock replacement head.
 
PRH said:
Slight hijack......
The tale of two flow benches.......
Similar capacity benches, operating on the same basic design, but not the same bench manufacturer.

Intake:
Lift———A/B
.100—-70.5/67.5
.200—139.1/142.8
.300—203.2/207.6
.400—237.5/241.2
.500—252.8/256.1
.600—255.5/260.6

Exhaust:
Lift——- A/B
.100—-76.1/57.1
.200—124.3/111.0
.300—159.3/150.0
.400—177.4/167.1
.500—179.3/170.8
.600—181.4/174.4

What’s interesting to me is one bench shows higher on the intake, the other shows higher on the exhaust.
The other thing is, the low lift exhaust flow on bench A is in la-la land(why would the exhaust outflow the intake port at that lift, with its 14.5% less flow area?)
On the intakes, the two benches are within 2-2.5% at all lifts.
On the exhaust there is a 33% discrepancy at .100 lift, and 12% at .200 lift....... tapering off to 4.5% at .600 lift.
The intake curves would be very close, the exhaust not so much.

But, to bring it back on topic....... if all you’re looking to do is build a 408-422” stroker to make 575hp or less, i’ll take the “cheaper and easier to get parts for, closed chamber for good quench, doesnt need expensive offset rockers, uses normal headers” RPM heads.
Click to expand...
The valvetrain cost has always been a barrier to the w2 especially the long valve version.
I stayed with it because I made the investment to all the other needed specialty parts 20 years ago lol. Sort off all your eggs in one basket.
But if starting from scratch the edelbrock cost versus performance
Does look very attractive. The thing to remember is that the w2 was designed from the beginning as an all out race head and its original goal was to get the pushrods out of the way to make the ports bigger which required a dedicated valvetrain.
Having said that, I too am surprised at the performance levels some guys are getting with the edelbrock, especially Pittsburgh racer, getting high 9,s. Low 10.00s being very common with a stroker build.
Not sure how much benefit to the closed chamber in a stroker build.
Some closed chamber designs are shrouding the intake airflow.
 
Not sure how much benefit to the closed chamber in a stroker build.
Some closed chamber designs are shrouding the intake airflow.
Click to expand...

You mean like all those 700, 800, 900, 1000hp builds based on the 360-1, W8, W9, Victor heads that are all closed chamber.
 
416, stage 1 rpm’s(260-265ish), ootb super victor, old school 850dp, 1-7/8” headers, very easy on parts solid cam around .560 lift, old crane iron rockers:

6C68056E-9625-4F81-ABBF-1E80C37BED98.jpeg
 
PRH said:
You mean like all those 700, 800, 900, 1000hp builds based on the 360-1, W8, W9, Victor heads that are all closed chamber.
Click to expand...

I said "some" closed chamber designs. I was just at Shady dell speed shop a couple weeks ago and I was shown a 3 way comparison between a w2 open chamber,Indy 360-1, and 360-2. Both Indys are closed chamber but the 360-2 shape is very different than the 1
Ryan claims the chamber shape in the 2 restricts the flow compared to the 1. The 360-1 around the valves where the airflow counts looks like a w2. Ryan also told me that he has a hard time explaining chamber function to customers. Again the w2 was way ahead of its time. Also part of the benefit to a closed chamber is the ability to get a decently high compression ratio with a flat top piston which now is a lightweight piston.
 
Sooooo, the “open” part of the open chamber...... the part of the chamber on the other side than the spark plug....... that’s the part that’s shrouding the valves?

Admittedly I haven’t had a W2 head here in the shop in quite some time, but I don’t recall the original w2 chamber being any different than a std X or J head.

C423D730-C330-4026-9072-80EDBD25B3A2.jpeg
 
PRH said:
Slight hijack......
The tale of two flow benches.......
Similar capacity benches, operating on the same basic design, but not the same bench manufacturer.

Intake:
Lift———A/B
.100—-70.5/67.5
.200—139.1/142.8
.300—203.2/207.6
.400—237.5/241.2
.500—252.8/256.1
.600—255.5/260.6

Exhaust:
Lift——- A/B
.100—-76.1/57.1
.200—124.3/111.0
.300—159.3/150.0
.400—177.4/167.1
.500—179.3/170.8
.600—181.4/174.4

What’s interesting to me is one bench shows higher on the intake, the other shows higher on the exhaust.
The other thing is, the low lift exhaust flow on bench A is in la-la land(why would the exhaust outflow the intake port at that lift, with its 14.5% less flow area?)
On the intakes, the two benches are within 2-2.5% at all lifts.
On the exhaust there is a 33% discrepancy at .100 lift, and 12% at .200 lift....... tapering off to 4.5% at .600 lift.
The intake curves would be very close, the exhaust not so much.

But, to bring it back on topic....... if all you’re looking to do is build a 408-422” stroker to make 575hp or less, i’ll take the “cheaper and easier to get parts for, closed chamber for good quench, doesnt need expensive offset rockers, uses normal headers” RPM heads.
Click to expand...



I'm going to try to answer some of this without getting long winded.
No.1. You can never accurately flow test heads with two different operators let alone two different style benches. some are orifice and some are fluid manometers that are affected by weather just like a barometer.
2. some guys don't have flow test plates and some that have them don't know how to adjust a bench for correction.
3. Some guys use a tube on the exhaust and doing so can raise your flow numbers by over 10%. Its a great selling feature to get more work.
4. You have to use a radius plate on the intake side to flow test heads. I have several that I made out of 1/2 inch Lexan and fill gaps with Duct Sill. Some guys are a little sloppy and quickly use clay.
4. Flow testing is an art to those that LOVE flow testing. With light testing springs on the valves and a dial indicator it takes time to properly set up. It takes FEEL to zero out your indicator at zero lift. If you set up .025 dialed into lift it is plus .025 the whole way up through the valve lift (example .650 would be .675). Most guys hate flow testing but I really used to enjoy it. Hopefully I get back in that mod this Winter.
 
PRH said:
Sooooo, the “open” part of the open chamber...... the part of the chamber on the other side than the spark plug....... that’s the part that’s shrouding the valves?

Admittedly I haven’t had a W2 head here in the shop in quite some time, but I don’t recall the original w2 chamber being any different than a std X or J head.

View attachment 1715269426
Click to expand...
No, the side on the spark plug side. There is a curvature to the chamber which is very gradual on some designs. The 360-2 is a more abrupt curvature, that to a degree, shrouds the intake valve.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Open chamber unshrouds more, same everything else closed vs open, the open chamber wins.
Click to expand...

That certainly doesn’t seem to be the direction things are going.

If that was really the hot ticket for everything ...... I wonder why they’d start out with chambers as small as:

24F9B2FD-DA6C-4577-ABBD-14D7775FDCEE.jpeg


Vizard has some interesting results in his SBC porting book relating to this.
Even though the “open” chamber SBC heads(that have the same port configuration) flow more than the equivalent “closed” chamber head, and even after equalizing the chamber volume so the CR remains the same for the test, the closed chamber heads made more power.
 
Last edited:
Duane said:
No, the side on the spark plug side. There is a curvature to the chamber which is very gradual on some designs. The 360-2 is a more abrupt curvature, that to a degree, shrouds the intake valve.
Click to expand...

That’s not the difference between “open” and “closed” chambers in the Mopar world.
“Open” chambers have the quench area of the chamber raised off the deck, like in the pic of the w2 heads I posted.

Your scenario is just two different closed chamber strategies.

In the Mopar world...... Edelbrock 60779 is closed chamber, the 60179 is open chamber........ even though they both start out as closed chamber.

2A37156D-CFE0-465A-AB46-C591E10F4A70.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Slight hijack......
The tale of two flow benches.......
Similar capacity benches, operating on the same basic design, but not the same bench manufacturer.

Intake:
Lift———A/B
.100—-70.5/67.5
.200—139.1/142.8
.300—203.2/207.6
.400—237.5/241.2
.500—252.8/256.1
.600—255.5/260.6

Exhaust:
Lift——- A/B
.100—-76.1/57.1
.200—124.3/111.0
.300—159.3/150.0
.400—177.4/167.1
.500—179.3/170.8
.600—181.4/174.4
Click to expand...

Just in case it wasn’t clear....... this was the same head, tested on two different benches.
Two benches that are of the same design, type, operation, and flow capacity....... but made by different manufacturers....... and in different locations, run by two different operators.
 
PRH said:
But, to bring it back on topic....... if all you’re looking to do is build a 408-422” stroker to make 575hp or less, i’ll take the “cheaper and easier to get parts for, closed chamber for good quench, doesnt need expensive offset rockers, uses normal headers” RPM heads.
Click to expand...
This is what I initially was responding to. You listed closed chamber feature as a benefit on the Edelbrock head. And it can be. I am simply saying that the feature is not always a benefit if it is restricting the overall performance of the head. I would not abandon a cast iron w2 because it is not closed chamber. And I am saying as was explained to me, that not all closed chamber designs perform the same as far as airflow potential because they are not cast with the same shape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top