RHS vs EQ compare...flow #'s inside...

-
dusterdoug

dusterdoug

FABO Gold Member
FABO Gold Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
309
Location
Tracy, CA
It went like this in compared to the "as supplied" 2.02 RHS's: We did improve on the RHS's but that's not the point of this posting. This is with the VJ that came on the EQ's and an OEM 1.92 Mag intake valve (the only 1.92 we had...) Then tried a 2.02 from the RHS head...

RHS EQ EQ
2.02 1.92 2.02
0.100 68.9 72.4 73.1
0.150 101.4 104.5 109.5
0.200 131.8 129.2 143.4
0.250 160.6 156.9 170.7
0.300 185.7 182.3 193.5
0.350 207.4 203.2 214.8
0.400 225.3 216.9 231.3
0.450 238.9 223.1 243.3
0.500 248.5 228.2 242.9
0.550 252.2 229.9 239.9
0.600 255.3 229.2 239.7

Interesting to note that up to .450 lift the 2.02 EQ's were better than the 2.02 RHS heads! For a guy who already has a 318/360 Mag, these EQ's and your stock rocker gear/.450-ish lift cam are a heck of a deal! I'm temped to build a 360 just for these EQ's...would be one heck of a street motor! Next a complete set of valves are on the way and we'll see what we can get out of the EQ's.

*All tests were done using a 4.00 bore and 28" depression*

Please note the disclaimer: This is not intended to get into a flowbench "race", or to knock or challenge anyone else's findings. It is information only that I thought it might be of some interest to some.
 
dusterdoug said:
It went like this in compared to the "as supplied" 2.02 RHS's: We did improve on the RHS's but that's not the point of this posting. This is with the VJ that came on the EQ's and an OEM 1.92 Mag intake valve (the only 1.92 we had...) Then tried a 2.02 from the RHS head...

RHS EQ EQ
2.02 1.92 2.02
0.100 68.9 72.4 73.1
0.150 101.4 104.5 109.5
0.200 131.8 129.2 143.4
0.250 160.6 156.9 170.7
0.300 185.7 182.3 193.5
0.350 207.4 203.2 214.8
0.400 225.3 216.9 231.3
0.450 238.9 223.1 243.3
0.500 248.5 228.2 242.9
0.550 252.2 229.9 239.9
0.600 255.3 229.2 239.7

Interesting to note that up to .450 lift the 2.02 EQ's were better than the 2.02 RHS heads! For a guy who already has a 318/360 Mag, these EQ's and your stock rocker gear are a heck of a deal! I'm temped to build a 360 just for these EQ's...would be one heck of a street motor! Next a complete set of valves are on the way and we'll see what we can get out of the EQ's.

Please note the disclaimer: This is not intended to get into a flowbench "race", or to knock or challenge anyone else's findings. It is information only that I thought it might be of some interest to some.
Click to expand...

This is a good comparison, FORGET ABOUT THE ACTUAL ####

Same operator, same bench, same accuracy
That"s a true apples to apples comparison.
I say again the ###MEAN NOTHING! but the variation between the heads do! :thumbup:

It would be interesting to see the same heads done again. with only a performance valve job(aka 3 angle valve Job.)

The E.Q. 2.02 and the R.H.S. 2.02 would be the best comparison

Then bowl blend work..........

Then..........

Just thinking out loud here.:-D
 
Yea, there is room to expand on this. The RHS's were bowl blended as they were supplied to us, while the EQ bowls were untouched for this first test. We're gonna "tinker" with the EQ's as soon as the valves are here. We could only rob the RHS 2.02 for a quickie test, as we needed to get those heads done and on the motor they belong to.

To keep this as "apples to apples" as possible, the VJ on the 2.02 EQ's was duplicated from the RHS's as we removed them from the box. Being that a different valve job on the RHS's improved them quite a bit, I would think the same would apply to the EQ's. We'll see...
 
Interesting comparison. If I read you right your saying the RHS heads were bowl blended and the EQ's were not? If so maybe that's why the EQ's flowed more down low and the RHS more up top. Just a thought.

Thanks for sharing the info Doug.

Tracy
 
fishy68 said:
Interesting comparison. If I read you right your saying the RHS heads were bowl blended and the EQ's were not? If so maybe that's why the EQ's flowed more down low and the RHS more up top. Just a thought.

Thanks for sharing the info Doug.

Tracy
Click to expand...

Yes, as supplied blend on the RHS's. The only thing we did to the EQ was to duplicate the valve job that was already on the RHS's (very conservative) and stick the 2.02 in. We did that just for giggles just to see what would happen, AND it appears that the EQ's had a slightly larger bowl area as cast. Your thought may very well be dead on; we'll find out as the valves that are coming are the same as the RHS and we'll again duplicate them to pick up where we left off.
 
fishy68 said:
Nuther question, did either of the heads go turbulent up top?
Click to expand...

Yep, both did. The RHS's were steady until .650 and then all over the place. The EQ's were right at that point at .600. Just past that they were a mess...
 
fishy68 said:
Do you plan on fully porting both sets?
Click to expand...

Good question. I'm not sure on either of these. The RHS are on a 416 (semi-budget) bracket motor and the reason we chose those was to keep the initial build cost for the owner as low as possible and still get his heap to the target of mid-10's. I think I'm gonna grab another pair of RHS and let the guy that owns the bench have at it...

The EQ's we'll develop on a try-something-and-see-what-we-get mode. The more positive results we get, the more we'll keep poking around.

I'm a knucklehead, compared to alot of guys doing this head stuff and REALLY new to the small block stuff so I am in serious LEARN mode. Thankful to have a good guy with me on this!
 
LOL, I'm just an amateur on these myself. You probably have a lot more experience than me. I wish I could afford a flow bench of my own so I don't have to drive 35 miles to use one.
 
I'm thinking the EQ 2.02s benefitted from the quality of the valve job to enlarge the seat. The single biggest peave I have is the repeatability of a production valve seat cutter. It seams like every time I look the "OOTB" valve job is horrid. A few tight guides, sure, I could see that as they are probably hand honed and more than likely never measured but done by feel. But the seat cutting can be horrendous. thanks for taking the initiative and doing this.
 
fishy68 said:
LOL, I'm just an amateur on these myself. You probably have a lot more experience than me. I wish I could afford a flow bench of my own so I don't have to drive 35 miles to use one.
Click to expand...

Me too! That way I don't have to drive 44 miles to play with one!!
 
moper said:
I'm thinking the EQ 2.02s benefitted from the quality of the valve job to enlarge the seat. The single biggest peave I have is the repeatability of a production valve seat cutter. It seams like every time I look the "OOTB" valve job is horrid. A few tight guides, sure, I could see that as they are probably hand honed and more than likely never measured but done by feel. But the seat cutting can be horrendous. thanks for taking the initiative and doing this.
Click to expand...

Well, I will say this to that point: I'm sure it did benefit from the valve job that was duplicated from the as supplied RHS heads. HOWEVER, it left quite a bit of margin on the valve. Very conservative. Also, it was apparant that the vendor who cut the RHS seats had a cutter that wasn't very concentric (?). We couldn't duplicate the cutter that had a problem on the RHS's with the EQ's, but we did dup the angles and margin just as a starting point.

Also it's worth noting that the owner of the bench's idea of a vj picked the RHS heads up 8 peak cfm without any other changes...Yep, I was schooled on that one!
 
I think the same tooling supplier supports all the head manufacturers...lol. Worst set I've gotten was Indy SRs. Three of sixteen seats were round... The worst was out .012". It is also apparent that different head guys spec different angles on thier cutters for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top