Print Page | Close Window

Head flow

Printed From: TheAMCForum.com
Category: The Garage
Forum Name: AMC V8 Engine Repair and Modifications
Forum Description: AMC-made V8 engine mechanical, ignition and fuel from basic repair to high-perf modifications
URL: https://theamcforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=16419
Printed Date: Mar/29/2024 at 5:59am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Head flow
Posted By: amccar
Subject: Head flow
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:03am
What is the flow limit for factory type heads without epoxy?

-------------



Replies:
Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:10am
 
 I've heard a number of claims of 305 cfm, but also hear from experienced head porters that it's not really happening?
 
 SKeown


Posted By: amccar
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:16am
There is a guy on E-Bay that is claiming 362cfm done without epoxy by Dean Turk. Has anyone heard of this Dean Turk?

-------------


Posted By: DragRacingSpirit
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:25am
Originally posted by amccar amccar wrote:

There is a guy on E-Bay that is claiming 362cfm done without epoxy by Dean Turk. Has anyone heard of this Dean Turk?
I would believe it when I see the numbers on my head porters flow bench. Before that I will say bull.
 
I have never personaly seen an AMC casting flow 300cfm let alone that number being thrown out there. The ported set of AMC castings that I used to run flowed in the 260-270 ish range if I remember right but they did not have any epoxy in them and were not radical or anything by any means.
 
I have seen an Indy SR head flow 345 ish CFM but that is after a LOT of work and the ports opened up as much as possible to 260cc of intake volume. I have never had the 401-1 head or the CNC versions on a flow bench so I only know what Indy claims on those.


-------------
Best 1/4 mile 8.99, 1/8 mile 5.71, 60 foot 1.27, no power adders


Posted By: amccar
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:25am
Thank's guys. That is what I thought. My heads have some work done to them and they do not come any way near that.

-------------


Posted By: tsanchez
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:30am
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/AMC-401-Cylinder-Heads-Fully-Ported-New-Valve-Job_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem2558877111QQitemZ160399061265QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories#rpdId - http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/AMC-401-Cylinder-Heads-Fully-Ported-New-Valve-Job_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQhashZitem2558877111QQitemZ160399061265QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTruckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories#rpdId

-------------
http://s192.photobucket.com/user/antonsan/media/jav1_zps87a70dce.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: billd
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 10:30am
There are some head flow specs posted here if that helps any...........
Also keep in mind, like other measurements, they might be using different pressures or criteria.
Ken Parkman is a guru on that stuff, probably Steve P as well.........
(Not that DRS isn't so no offense!)


-------------


http://theamcpages.com" rel="nofollow - http://theamcpages.com

http://antique-engines.com" rel="nofollow - http://antique-engines.com


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 11:06am
 
 Ken P. tested mine right at 280 and Hurst390's are supposed to be 290 or so.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: steeters
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 12:06pm
Hurst390 has one of the faster NA factory head motors out there.  You can probably figure out about what it flows (Barry Allen ported) based on mph?
Heck, he might even tell you what they flow.
STeve


Posted By: DragRacingSpirit
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 1:30pm
Originally posted by steeters steeters wrote:

Hurst390 has one of the faster NA factory head motors out there.  You can probably figure out about what it flows (Barry Allen ported) based on mph?
Heck, he might even tell you what they flow.
STeve
His Spirit runs real well and it has iron heads on it. Either he has some of the absolute best flowing AMC iron heads or his engine builder Barry Allen has some AMC efficiency tricks up his sleeve we don't know about Smile  I bet Jim would claim that it is his tune that makes the difference !
Wink
 
His Spirit and mine ran real close to the same ET when I last had my car running.....and last time I had my race car running my Indy SR heads were flowing in the 315 range on the intake side.


-------------
Best 1/4 mile 8.99, 1/8 mile 5.71, 60 foot 1.27, no power adders


Posted By: Steve_P
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 1:57pm
362 cfm is possible- but maybe at 60" H2O LOL
 
I doubt you could get that from a factory cast iron casting at 28"- maybe not even with the valve removed. 
 
I got ~263 cfm at .5" at 28" H2O but obviously quite a bit more than that is possible.  I don't remember what the best in the flow data by Ken Parkman is. 


Posted By: steeters
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 2:18pm
Originally posted by DragRacingSpirit DragRacingSpirit wrote:

Originally posted by steeters steeters wrote:

Hurst390 has one of the faster NA factory head motors out there.  You can probably figure out about what it flows (Barry Allen ported) based on mph?
Heck, he might even tell you what they flow.
STeve
His Spirit runs real well and it has iron heads on it. Either he has some of the absolute best flowing AMC iron heads or his engine builder Barry Allen has some AMC efficiency tricks up his sleeve we don't know about Smile  I bet Jim would claim that it is his tune that makes the difference !
Wink
 
His Spirit and mine ran real close to the same ET when I last had my car running.....and last time I had my race car running my Indy SR heads were flowing in the 315 range on the intake side.
 
Oh, and I don't know if there is epoxy in there or not (Hurst390).  Like I said, might post the info himself.


Posted By: BassBoat
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 2:41pm

Mine flowed 294 at .700 lift, at 28"  That is a 2.10 DelWest valve turned down to 2.07.  The party that owned the flow bench had heads that flowed more than mine without epoxy.  That said, I would never suggest that you can translate from flow bench to flow bench any more than you can compare dyno to dyno. 

BB


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 3:43pm
mailto:310@600 - 310@600

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 5:25pm
no epoxy...I uses a stock mr gasket intake gasket also...The flow is to get big past the pushrod and in the bowl entry..and i'm sure mine has some weld in places where a hole occured..mine are 290's at 800 lift I think..

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: steeters
Date Posted: Feb/02/2010 at 5:57pm

Is that the fastest factory head car without epoxy?

Steve


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Feb/03/2010 at 7:05am
LOL..I don't know? I think Glenn Quinn had iron heads and ran 8's...alot lighter car but alot faster..You have Barry's and Hemi's ss/b cars...Aris ss/c...etc.  My car is pretty close to SS/C weight I think...But i have no idea if they have epoxy..

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: amccar
Date Posted: Feb/03/2010 at 7:33am
Anyone have heads with epoxy? What are the problems that you have to watch for and how hard are they to work with?

-------------


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Feb/03/2010 at 8:56am

Maybe it depends are where the epoxy was placed?...I have ground through at the pushrod pinch point on my own heads I have done(I have never tried to epoxy a hole into coolant)...and I have used high dollar putty made by permetex..and had some come out...so after talking to an old ss racer years ago he told me of his same problems..and he found out that after cleaning your parts as good as you possibly can..

take wesleys bleach white and scrub the area to be epoxied....
 
I went to that method and have never had any come out since! and now I just use regular old plumbers putty that comes in a stick....
I practiced with some devcon on a pontiac engine at the push rod pinch...it didn't last 2 weeks...went back with the above method and plumbers putty and it's stayed intact for 10 years...
 
 
but here is the thing...before I took my engine to Barry Allen I would spend alot of time on my heads making the port opening bigger,higher etc...My engine that Barry built for me has a stock intake port opening and placement..he made the pushrod pinch almost flat and when he got by the push rod thats where the real port work begins......
so my best advice is send Barry or Hemi a set of heads and let the pro's take care of the heads....


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: trrowe
Date Posted: May/08/2010 at 10:58am
You don't have that much flow because Dean Turk didn't do your port work. When Don Garlits came out of retirement to attempt to break the 300 mph barrier he chose Dean Turk to do all the port work on his cylinder heads and manifolds. Thats how good he is. He has turned away work for years because he's always swamped with work. He will only do port work for true enthusiasts and always achieves the best flow numbers. Dean has been retired for many years, but still does the best port work in the country for a select few. He was a pioneer and early dominating force in the early 60's, First in a Pontiac powered Fuel dragster and later with a Crysler Hemi Fuel dragster.If you don't know of Dean, then you missed out on a truly fine human being that would be just as excited as you are to see you (and help with the best possible porting) tweak as much performance as possible out of your AMC.
 I'll never forget hearing a deafening roar from my shop, and running outside to see Dean smiling and tuning Eddy Hill's Top Fuel dragster right before Eddy retired.
 No finer cylinder head, intake manifold porting guru has ever lived. He always did extra work for the regular "Joe." especially if you wanted performance from a platform that wasn't the typical "performance" vehicle.
Thanks, Dean, Ed, Bill, Jerry.....


-------------
Go with the Flow


Posted By: purple72Gremlin
Date Posted: May/08/2010 at 11:10am
Originally posted by trrowe trrowe wrote:

You don't have that much flow because Dean Turk didn't do your port work. When Don Garlits came out of retirement to attempt to break the 300 mph barrier he chose Dean Turk to do all the port work on his cylinder heads and manifolds. Thats how good he is. He has turned away work for years because he's always swamped with work. He will only do port work for true enthusiasts and always achieves the best flow numbers. Dean has been retired for many years, but still does the best port work in the country for a select few. He was a pioneer and early dominating force in the early 60's, First in a Pontiac powered Fuel dragster and later with a Crysler Hemi Fuel dragster.If you don't know of Dean, then you missed out on a truly fine human being that would be just as excited as you are to see you (and help with the best possible porting) tweak as much performance as possible out of your AMC.
 I'll never forget hearing a deafening roar from my shop, and running outside to see Dean smiling and tuning Eddy Hill's Top Fuel dragster right before Eddy retired.
 No finer cylinder head, intake manifold porting guru has ever lived. He always did extra work for the regular "Joe." especially if you wanted performance from a platform that wasn't the typical "performance" vehicle.
Thanks, Dean, Ed, Bill, Jerry.....
Did Mr Turk ever do an AMC??


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/10/2010 at 1:22am
This "luxurywheel" that places Dean Turks ads recently had a pair of "Dean Turk NASCAR AMC NASCAR heads" on ebay. Super rare part, super expensive (I think it was $2500 starting bid) blah, blah, blah. They were standard passenger car heads (291 or 993 as I recall). I sent an email to luxowheel and politely mentioned I had a set of AMC Trapezoid NASCAR heads that look quite a bit different than what he was offering and if Dean wanted to drive north about 30 minutes he could take a look-see. I was told "that's what Dean said, he's the best, etc., etc."  
So maybe at one time they were bolted on a NASCAR AMC but I think most would agree there is a difference between the two. 
My -291's flow 303 CFM and I know Barry Allen and A.H. Adkins can come up at least the same if not better numbers (I assume better) but they're using larger valves than my 2.02" / 1.68" which are required in my class. I also have to maintain 175cc intake runners and 75cc exhaust runners per the class rules. The SS/B through SS/D 390 cross ram SS engine has larger valves and ports volume specs.  
Since my SS engine (1970 390 w/ Autolite carb) was built, NHRA has been more generous in what is acceptable with valve jobs. We'll be trying new valve angles and the numbers may improve. Probably only slightly, hopefully not worse! 
My machinist is Bud Yancer of MACH Development. That's Manifold and Cylinder Head Development. And while he has built some competitive Jeep off-road SCORE engines in the past, my heads are the most serious drag race factory AMC heads he has ever done. To suggest one has to be an AMC "guru" on anything related to the engine is nonsense in my opinion. Adkins did provide me with a 5 word clue that was really helpful so I'm glad we can all work together. 
So I would say based on what has been mentioned here, along with my own results and what I have spoken to with Adkins and Allen, it would appear low 300 CFM range is credible. 

What I would really like to know is some serious reporting on Trapezoid heads as they are a factory (although over the counter) cast iron cylinder head. I have the last design with the raised / large runner intake and trapezoid exhaust ports. I'd like info on runner volumes, valve sizes, chamber volumes and of course CFM ratings. I'd like to know what the numbers are on relatively stock or "as delivered" (or at least assembled without extensive work) vs. "built to kill". 
Some other day I will have a use for them. But not today. 


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: May/10/2010 at 8:19am
trap heads flow about 340 with a 2.08 valve...bigger valves 360cfm.....not bad for 35+ year old iron heads?
Ken Parkman made a port mold off mine a couple years ago in stock form...maybe he will chime in and share the pics compared to other runners he has molded?

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/10/2010 at 10:05pm
Unfortunately we took that mold out too early so it lost some of it's shape. But it's still enough to show the trap head is big time different than a stock iron casting. The csa through the center where you can't make the stock head big enough has been fixed in the trap head - and how! It's way huge where it needs to be to properly feed a bigger valve. The volume is much larger than a stock head.




Posted By: beepbeep
Date Posted: May/10/2010 at 10:48pm
Mr Ken Parkman, You've done a bunch of flowing on AMC heads. Whats your opinion concerning some of the CFM claims from AMC heads? Over the years we've heard some pretty big numbers but have never seen an actual flow test to back the numbers up. BB


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/10/2010 at 11:21pm
Ken's opinion will be appreciated but if I may interject, CFM = HP, HP = MPH, numbers don't lie. You can't take one factor out of the equation and get the same results. This is of course relevant to a naturally aspirated engine. 

-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: beepbeep
Date Posted: May/10/2010 at 11:49pm
What numbers are you suggesting don'nt lie?   


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 1:14am
Using my own examples, my stock eliminator -291 heads (no porting allowed and I had 270 CFM intake flow with 165 cc intake runners against a 175cc spec) made 534 HP which runs in line with the 125 MPH runs I made @ 3160 #'s. 
Took another set of -291's for Superstock (porting allowed but stock valve sizes and 175cc runner volume spec) which are 303 CFM and the engine makes 635 HP and runs 132 MPH @ same weight. 
Ken can chime in with CFM to HP formulas but the bottom line is with no airflow you have no HP. With no HP you have no MPH. You can reverse formulate the probable flow of a set of heads if you know the MPH & distance. Math takes all the BS out of the bench talk. 


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 4:21am
 
 So, if I run 128 MPH @ 3150 #'s, I've probably wrung out the HP potential of 280 CFM heads? The thing that's confusing, Jim (Hurst390) claims his heads flow 290 something, but look at how fast he runs? Besides he's feeding more inches and isn't taking it easy on it either.
 
 SKeown  


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 7:52am
superstock do the math for us...2950# 145.11 mph 1320 ft....how many cfm?
Ken post those pics if you get a chance and don't mind...


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: beepbeep
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 9:40am
I asked for Ken Parkmans opinion concerning the large flow numbers being claimed from cast iron production AMC heads. SS came back with a statement "the numbers don't lie". Were you assuming Ken would not agree with the large numbers? Lets just look at it this way. If Jim {hurst390} is respected and assumed to be one of the fasted guys running a cast iron production head and he says his heads are 290 cfm. How is it there are other claims of much bigger flow numbers and Jim is still one of the fastest?? Jims heads are ported we've been told by one of the best, and SS claims his were not ported and flowed 270 only 20 less CFM.?? And SS, if you have a cast set flowing 303 with stock valves, then Jim needs that set and I have a bridge for sale.


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 10:06am
here's all the formula's you should need to make your own calculations. It has CFM requirements, HP to MPH and much more. It's easy to use and will get you in the ballpark. 

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/index.html - http://users.erols.com/srweiss/index.html


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 10:10am
BeepBeep, 
I didn't notice your last post until after I posted the link to the formulas. 
You make a lot of assumptions. There was nothing in my posts to discredit anybody. 


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 10:21am

First off – I do not believe all the flow numbers floating around. There are certain fundamentals of valve size, angle, chamber shape, and CSA, and some numbers bounced around do not make sense.

 

I’ve also had a few cylinder heads brought by (other makes) with to good to be true flow sheets from somewhere else, and they were to good to be true. Same with dyno numbers.

 

On my bench I have not been able to get some of the big flow numbers that have been bounced around. I have spent a lot of effort to make my machine accurate, creating SEO calibration plates. There is simply not the material in the castings to be removed to get some of these flow numbers. I have gotten higher numbers by getting more radical and porting into water, but that`s not a great plan for most applications.

 

Of course I am willing to be educated – you can always learn. I`d love to see one of these high flowing heads and have it proven that the flow numbers do exist. But I do figure at this point I have a pretty good idea on what it takes; I figure the 2 most powerful NA AMC engines out there (ever?) have my heads.

 

As far as flow equals power that is true – to a point. Obviously the rest of the engine has to be able to convert that flow into power, and blindly making the hole bigger to make more flow (also obviously a bigger hole flows more air) is stupid.

 

There is an old Superflow formula that says there is 2.05 hp per cfm at 28” h2o. That is not correct. You can well exceed that with proper engine design. Hurst390`s engine is probably a perfect example. That thing is clearly extremely efficient everywhere – excellent design. I also have stuff that is way over 2.05 hp per cfm, proven at the track.

 

Another issue is velocity. You get much above mach .55 it all goes for a crap – the engine simply can’t make more power, no mater what the flow number is. Some really high flowing heads simply do not make the power – the CSA and velocity is wrong.

 

The real answer is the track. 1/4 mile MPH and weight takes power – that’s all there is to it.

 

Hurst – that mold really is not good. I’ll take a picture, but everyone has to realize it’s out of shape, and a race intended head like that is really semi-finished, not meant to be used as is. You can’t read a lot into it unless you really understand this stuff.



Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 3:57pm
BTW the aforementioned 362 cfm would take a 2.15 valve with 100%, efficiency, perfect location in the chamber, and for the engine to make the power you would need an absolute min CSA of about 2.95 sq in. Most of the port would have to be larger than that, especially through the bend. That's over 50% larger than a stock casting. To achieve that you would also need a perfect ssr, not possible with something resembling a stock head. If using a stock casting every wall would need to be cut out and relocated. The end product would be a work of art, and totally sensless to even dream of. If you need a head like that go buy an Indy -1, way cheaper and better.
 
If that's supposed to be from a stock casting, yes, that is one of the numbers I would not believe. Once again, willing to be proven wrong. Anyone got one of those for me to test/analyze?


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 4:12pm
the 360 I mentioned is a trapazoid head with a big valve...I was curious about the mold myself compared to an untouched in sr head and a stock iron...no big deal....

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: stickshifter
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 4:55pm
Originally posted by SuperStockAMX SuperStockAMX wrote:

here's all the formula's you should need to make your own calculations. It has CFM requirements, HP to MPH and much more. It's easy to use and will get you in the ballpark. 

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/index.html - http://users.erols.com/srweiss/index.html


Interesting formulas.  Not so sure I believe them.. at all.  I ran a 8.09 at 166 last Sunday at 2650 pounds.  Most of the calculators put this at about 1000 hp.  Now put that into those formulas and it says 486 CFM at 28".  Amazing, because I know my heads are about 20% less than that.


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 6:08pm
To say one person is the end all in cylinder head (AMC or otherwise) work, is fooling oneself. That goes for anything in life. Just because some of you can't find 270 CFM on un-ported 2.02" / 1.68" heads (which held the National Record and were completely inspected for legality by accomplished tech members of NHRA), does not make the job impossible. Like you said, Ken, you do have room to learn and I hope you get there someday.  And I imagine my engine builder would put you to shame on cylinder head work on any level; not to mention the rest of the engine. He's 58 years old and has been doing this since he was a teen. Since you don't want to believe me and you really do think 300+ CFM is out of touch with reality on an AMC production head, call up Adkins and Allen and tell them you have a bridge to sell also. Because they have -291 & -993 production heads going low 9's at 143 or so with 3200 # cars. . 
Stickshifter, I see you have made improvements to the car and ar now only .15 away from the formula of 1320 / MPH = optimum ET which you previously stated wouldn't work. I believe the last time we discussed this you were running 8.25's or so. Congratulations, you're getting there. 7.95 is still obtainable @ 166 MPH. Good luck. 



-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: DragRacingSpirit
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 6:27pm
270 cfm out of unported iron casting doesn't sound possible to me.
 
When you say unported I assume that you mean a die grinder has never touched them in any way and the ports are exactly the way they left the factory ?
 
So what you are saying is that you can go to a junkyard, pull off an iron AMC head of whatever casting number, clean them up/recondition them to 100% stock specs, do a fancy valve job and get them to flow a peak number of 270 cfm on the intake port ?
 
I'm sorry but if I see it on my porters flow bench with my own eyes I will believe it.
 
 


-------------
Best 1/4 mile 8.99, 1/8 mile 5.71, 60 foot 1.27, no power adders


Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 6:37pm
Jeff you really are a piece of work. You'll note I was talking about the 362 cfm you also didn't believe. I was not commenting on you or your builder.


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 6:50pm
Sorry Ken, but the flow of the posts seemed to go around the 300'ish numbers that I was stating and seemed long removed from the 362 CFM discussion on a pair of production heads. It wasn't clear what numbers you were talking about when you posted at 10:21 today. I think if you re-read that post you might understand where I was coming from. 
If you can see the possibility of 300 +/- , then I apologize. The problems are almost always a result of not being able to communicate between 2 or more people on a post vs. having a real conversation. I tend to be a lot more direct when writing than verbally, as I'm sure is the case with you. 




-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 6:56pm
Here are some pictures of some stock AMC molds. From left to right:

304, 390 rectangular, 401 dog leg, Edelbrock, Trapezoid (distorted and not fully filled) Indy SR



And here a few closer pics of the stock, trapezoid, and SR




It's hard to see, but there is a lot more area through the middle on the trapezoid. The Indy looks a lot different doesn't it?


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 7:11pm
Originally posted by DragRacingSpirit DragRacingSpirit wrote:

270 cfm out of unported iron casting doesn't sound possible to me.
 
When you say unported I assume that you mean a die grinder has never touched them in any way and the ports are exactly the way they left the factory ?
 
So what you are saying is that you can go to a junkyard, pull off an iron AMC head of whatever casting number, clean them up/recondition them to 100% stock specs, do a fancy valve job and get them to flow a peak number of 270 cfm on the intake port ?
 
I'm sorry but if I see it on my porters flow bench with my own eyes I will believe it. 

Oh but it is possible and when I set the E/S record @ 10.72 @ 124.58 MPH@ 3,320 #'s that's exactly what was on the 390 and was checked for legality by NHRA. A random head is selected and pulled off and completely torn apart and inspected for proper angles, chamber volume, port volume, valve head and stem diameters. You can't even port match.
Most people that are not accustomed to NHRA Stock or Super stock racing find it hard to believe these cars do what they with the limitations placed on them. Just ask that Ken Hadley guy on "Pass Time". When a S/SS car comes on the show he can't begin to make an educated guess on what the car will run. His reactions are funny. 
Valves are not stock OEM but custom made stainless with valve angles and seat angles that are spec'ed and machined by the machinist. It's a labor intensive task of trying a new angle and flowing, trying another angle and flowing. Over and over. And when it's all said and done, a pair of heads ready to bolt on will set you back about $4500. No, it's not for a bracket racer. It would be a waste of time and money on a bracket car. But it is possible. You just have to want it real bad. 



-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: May/11/2010 at 8:00pm
 
 Jeff, if they didn't catch the exhaust crossovers being welded up, I doubt the tech had a clue what he was looking at in the first place. One thing I do know, you wouldn't hesitste to cheat and then lie about it!!
 
 SKeown


Posted By: beepbeep
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 12:40am
Ken Parkman, I asked for your opinion and I Thank You for giving it. Watching the remarkable claims of high flow numbers over the years {the higher numbers never had any porting done} There's one conclusion. Obviously no one paying to have a head flowed is being told the truth. I've flowed a good selection of AMC heads and have a good baseline to compare. No stock production 390 head flows 270 cfm with only the seats screwed with.       


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 7:30am
Originally posted by SuperStockAMX SuperStockAMX wrote:

To say one person is the end all in cylinder head (AMC or otherwise) work, is fooling oneself. That goes for anything in life. Just because some of you can't find 270 CFM on un-ported 2.02" / 1.68" heads (which held the National Record and were completely inspected for legality by accomplished tech members of NHRA), does not make the job impossible. Like you said, Ken, you do have room to learn and I hope you get there someday.  And I imagine my engine builder would put you to shame on cylinder head work on any level; not to mention the rest of the engine. He's 58 years old and has been doing this since he was a teen. Since you don't want to believe me and you really do think 300+ CFM is out of touch with reality on an AMC production head, call up Adkins and Allen and tell them you have a bridge to sell also. Because they have -291 & -993 production heads going low 9's at 143 or so with 3200 # cars. . 
Stickshifter, I see you have made improvements to the car and ar now only .15 away from the formula of 1320 / MPH = optimum ET which you previously stated wouldn't work. I believe the last time we discussed this you were running 8.25's or so. Congratulations, you're getting there. 7.95 is still obtainable @ 166 MPH. Good luck. 

Jeff it doesn't take you long at all to discredit poeple does it?Clapyour 1st post in this subject and almost every response thereafter...again if you want to discredit people then it would be more in line for you to discredit someone with their car on jackstands that have not raced in years...

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Rebel25A
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 7:53am
LOL...

-------------
URL=http://www.mybannermaker.com/link.php?nurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mybannermaker.com][/URL]


Posted By: tsanchez
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 9:24am
I have spoken with Rick Kemph, he worked for Mullin and Co back when they did the pro stock stuff for Booth, he has all the specs from back then and looked up a set for me, back then they flowed heads at a different depression so he converted it to 28 and said it was about 340 or so. I know that peak flow is not a good indication of hp potential for a head as it is only at peak once and is at lower lifts twice, you can get two heads on the same bench that flow 300cfm at .700 lift and it is quite possible to install on the same engine with the same camshaft and have one set make much more hp because the low lift numbers/port velocity were way better on it.
As a general rule you need x amount of airflow to make x amount of hp, you can get that flow from low lifts and peak lifts and everywhere in between. That's where the cam comes into play, utilising what you have and optimising it for your heads.
 
This is only my opinion so take it as that.LOL


-------------
http://s192.photobucket.com/user/antonsan/media/jav1_zps87a70dce.jpg.html" rel="nofollow">


Posted By: amx39068
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 11:29am
Originally posted by Hurst390 Hurst390 wrote:

Jeff it doesn't take you long at all to discredit poeple does it?Clapyour 1st post in this subject and almost every response thereafter...again if you want to discredit people then it would be more in line for you to discredit someone with their car on jackstands that have not raced in years...
 
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 Jeff, if they didn't catch the exhaust crossovers being welded up, I doubt the tech had a clue what he was looking at in the first place. One thing I do know, you wouldn't hesitste to cheat and then lie about it!!
 
 SKeown
 
Pretty interesting comments that seem to be consistent with what I have heard around the Pheonix area as well.


-------------
Dan Curtis-Owner and CEO AZ AMC Restorations; Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/amcmusclecars/ & Curtis Real Estate Development


Posted By: Class Guy
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 12:35pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 Jeff, if they didn't catch the exhaust crossovers being welded up, I doubt the tech had a clue what he was looking at in the first place.
 
 SKeown
Exhaust crossovers being welding is perfectly okay as long as any work done does not extend into the port.  Quote from NHRA rule book, "Heat riser passage may be blocked from the intake manifold side of the cylinder head.  Blocking passage down in the valve pocket is prohibited."  They do not limit how to block the heat riser passage.  Over the years, I have used furnace cement, molten aluminum, plaster of paris (my favorite), and welding.  I have never had a cylinder head kicked out in tech.  Over the years, I have been reponsible for 57 national records being set, 43 national event class wins, 31 divisional races won and 5 national event wins.
I just want to clarify that point.  As for the rest of y'all's backbiting, poor-mouthing conversation, have at it.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 3:23pm
 
 Class Guy, I suspect welding a piece of cylinder wall into the exhaust pocket, then conforming it into the port to match the others would be frowned upon. Nevertheless, my point is what it is.
 
 You should be proud of you're accomplishments.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 4:19pm
Great scott look at those poly profiles! Thanks for lining them up and sharing pics!! Gives a clue or a hint to how clueless the Indy profile seems to be.

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: DragRacingSpirit
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 4:25pm
Originally posted by 74Bubblefender 74Bubblefender wrote:

Great scott look at those poly profiles! Thanks for lining them up and sharing pics!! Gives a clue or a hint to how clueless the Indy profile seems to be.
Since the Indy head is the best flowing head that us AMCers have access to they must not be totally clueless.
 
Just looking at the design it is by far more superior than any of the other profiles.
 
On the SR plug the intake runner inlet opening looks way small than the profile of the rest of the port...and I am sure that Indy did this intentionally on the SR head for "stock" type parts compatibility.
 
If you open it up to match the rest of the runner and bowl size it looks by far superior than anything else pictured to me. 
 


-------------
Best 1/4 mile 8.99, 1/8 mile 5.71, 60 foot 1.27, no power adders


Posted By: steeters
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 4:47pm
Originally posted by Ken_Parkman Ken_Parkman wrote:

Here are some pictures of some stock AMC molds. From left to right:

304, 390 rectangular, 401 dog leg, Edelbrock, Trapezoid (distorted and not fully filled) Indy SR



 
Wow Ken, it looks like you've got an 18 year old cat with a nervous colon roaming around the carpet.LOLLOL


Posted By: Class Guy
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 4:55pm
Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 Class Guy, I suspect welding a piece of cylinder wall into the exhaust pocket, then conforming it into the port to match the others would be frowned upon.
What you describe is past questionable; it would definitely get you disqualified.
 
 
Originally posted by DragRacingSpirit DragRacingSpirit wrote:

Since the Indy head is the best flowing head that us AMCers have access to they must not be totally clueless.
 
What they lack in finesse, they make up for in volume.  A sewer pipe does not have to flow well, just enough.
 
 


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 4:57pm
I dont like the SR's out of the box they flow less than Edelbrocks but show more potential.

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 5:18pm
Originally posted by DragRacingSpirit DragRacingSpirit wrote:

Originally posted by 74Bubblefender 74Bubblefender wrote:

Great scott look at those poly profiles! Thanks for lining them up and sharing pics!! Gives a clue or a hint to how clueless the Indy profile seems to be.
Since the Indy head is the best flowing head that us AMCers have access to they must not be totally clueless.
 
Just looking at the design it is by far more superior than any of the other profiles.
 
On the SR plug the intake runner inlet opening looks way small than the profile of the rest of the port...and I am sure that Indy did this intentionally on the SR head for "stock" type parts compatibility.
 
If you open it up to match the rest of the runner and bowl size it looks by far superior than anything else pictured to me. 
 
With a little more thought on this I wonder why Edelbrock stayed with a smaller bowl lead in area and they used Pro-e for their design. I wonder if Indy did this because the computer told them its best or if it was a artistic approach. I see the sharp radius at the bottom that sets up for turbulence in the cylinder.

-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 5:41pm
The Indy SR is a really nice serious performance design that is screwed up to match a stock port opening. At least that's my opinion. Most of the port is actually sized very nicely for the size of the valve, and the ssr is much larger. The problem is the fairly poor machining and the stock size port inlet that is way out of line with everything else. Fix those things and you got a pretty nice serious performance cylinder head that'll make some power. You do need to pay attention to CSA.

Out of the box it's actually sorta dumb.

My opinion is the Edelbrock is a good street performance piece out of the box, ideal for a guy who wants an upgrade from stock and an aluminum head but does not to get into porting. But it's just not got the design for big power like an Indy. The port volume is just not there, and to get it would be a lot of work and you would still never get the ssr. Still fine for a milder race car, say 10's or 11's.


Posted By: 74Bubblefender
Date Posted: May/12/2010 at 6:19pm
Originally posted by Ken_Parkman Ken_Parkman wrote:

The Indy SR is a really nice serious performance design that is screwed up to match a stock port opening. At least that's my opinion. Most of the port is actually sized very nicely for the size of the valve, and the ssr is much larger. The problem is the fairly poor machining and the stock size port inlet that is way out of line with everything else. Fix those things and you got a pretty nice serious performance cylinder head that'll make some power. You do need to pay attention to CSA.

Out of the box it's actually sorta dumb.

My opinion is the Edelbrock is a good street performance piece out of the box, ideal for a guy who wants an upgrade from stock and an aluminum head but does not to get into porting. But it's just not got the design for big power like an Indy. The port volume is just not there, and to get it would be a lot of work and you would still never get the ssr. Still fine for a milder race car, say 10's or 11's.
Kind of like paying for a head that is half done. Those ports should be opened up and raised out of the box instead of low browing BUT I suppose they wanted to capture the attention of all AMC'ers in all performance levels. Take a set of virgin Edelbrocks, a spool gun filled with aluminum and 200 hours of work and then you got something great. LOL
 
Both heads are fantastic and we are very lucky to have more than the OEM choice. I stand by my first post in this thread for most intake gain out of a stock production AMC head without epoxy.Wink


-------------
We are just about to forge new AMC V8 crankshafts.. please check here
http://www.bulltear.com/forums/showthread.php?19564


Posted By: Steve_P
Date Posted: May/13/2010 at 6:43am
Ken P or Hurst 390: I know the mold is screwed up, but is the short side radius on the trapezoid head as non-existent as the mold makes it look?  

Ken: thanks for posting the mold pics.


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: May/13/2010 at 7:33am
the seat on the trapazoid head were un cut and very small...the trapazoid is an excellent head...
 


-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: May/13/2010 at 7:54am
As for Jeffs ss heads...I beleive that his MACH man did get 303cfm...from what i hear from highly reliable sources is that he is a genius....as far as 270 out of his stock head i believe that also..but the problem is that most likely porting was done( I sure can't prove it..lol) with methods to make it look like no porting was done...those are tricks as old as class racing itself...thats why Jeff has to spend the kind of $$$$ on the heads he runs...cheating...you can call it that...but when everyone does it in some form and you want to be competitive then eventually your going to have to read between the lines...thats class racing of any kind....
Hammer on me all you want but that is my opinion...like it/him or not...
as for ss racing...there will soon be the 1st SS/B AMX in the 8's..The HP is there to do it..he has to get it to the track and get the car worked out....this is an nhra SS legal engine....

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Ken_Parkman
Date Posted: May/13/2010 at 11:33am
As well the throat area of the bowl area is the unfilled part on the trapezoid mold. We had a leak in the casting during the pour and there wasn't time to do another. There actually was not enough time to do that one, we had to take it out before the material was set. The stuff I use really needs 24 hours to properly set.
 
So the mold is decieving, there is more ss than it looks. The trapezoid is a race piece with way more capability than stock. I really like the csa through the middle.


Posted By: SKeown
Date Posted: May/13/2010 at 2:18pm
 
 Drag racing a class car is like endurance sports. Even though steroids are banned, I doubt a single gold medal has been won by anyone without them in the last 40 years. I've run 13 marathons and raced bicycles throught the US, Canada and Europe, I can assure you that's the way it is.
 
 If trick valved and seats could provide a 45 CFM gain, more would be doing it.
 
 SKeown


Posted By: SuperStockAMX
Date Posted: May/14/2010 at 11:39am
Originally posted by Class Guy Class Guy wrote:

Originally posted by SKeown SKeown wrote:

 
 Class Guy, I suspect welding a piece of cylinder wall into the exhaust pocket, then conforming it into the port to match the others would be frowned upon.
What you describe is past questionable; it would definitely get you disqualified.
 
 
Originally posted by DragRacingSpirit DragRacingSpirit wrote:

Since the Indy head is the best flowing head that us AMCers have access to they must not be totally clueless.
 
What they lack in finesse, they make up for in volume.  A sewer pipe does not have to flow well, just enough.

The cylinder heads that flowed the "impossible" 270 CFM had the heat riser ports filled / welded per allowable rules and were confirmed by NHRA tech. In fact the car was teched above and beyond normal tech. I would bet money that Class Guy could obtain the same results. 


-------------
1970 AMC AMX
NHRA SS/H Class
MACH Development 4300 Autolite equiped 390, Jerico 4-speed
w/ Advanced Clutch


Posted By: Randall Racing
Date Posted: Sep/05/2012 at 2:00pm
Originally posted by trrowe trrowe wrote:

You don't have that much flow because Dean Turk didn't do your port work. When Don Garlits came out of retirement to attempt to break the 300 mph barrier he chose Dean Turk to do all the port work on his cylinder heads and manifolds. Thats how good he is. He has turned away work for years because he's always swamped with work. He will only do port work for true enthusiasts and always achieves the best flow numbers. Dean has been retired for many years, but still does the best port work in the country for a select few. He was a pioneer and early dominating force in the early 60's, First in a Pontiac powered Fuel dragster and later with a Crysler Hemi Fuel dragster.If you don't know of Dean, then you missed out on a truly fine human being that would be just as excited as you are to see you (and help with the best possible porting) tweak as much performance as possible out of your AMC.
 I'll never forget hearing a deafening roar from my shop, and running outside to see Dean smiling and tuning Eddy Hill's Top Fuel dragster right before Eddy retired.
 No finer cylinder head, intake manifold porting guru has ever lived. He always did extra work for the regular "Joe." especially if you wanted performance from a platform that wasn't the typical "performance" vehicle.
Thanks, Dean, Ed, Bill, Jerry.....
 
Yes.... Dean Turk is the man...  My family has worked with Dean since the 60's and all the heads on every Race car or Race truck we have built in the past to current have been sent to Dean...
My heads for my 74 Gremlin 401 X-R are on there way to Deans as we speak...  Amazing Work.
 


-------------
Cory Randall
74 Gremlin 401 X-R



Posted By: PHAT69AMX
Date Posted: Feb/20/2019 at 2:20pm
"Woke Up" this AWESOME old informative and revealing thread!

Ken Parkman, if I may ask...

Have been trying to find your much appreciated write up text
from the various CARBURETOR FLOW TEST on Fran's old forum.
It is a great loss for the AMC Community that that forum is now gone.

I successfully found Page 1 of that old thread using the Wayback Machine
and saved your posted info from page 1...   but...
Page 2 with 4 more post and some more of the info from your work
is NOT saved on the Wayback Machine that I can find...

May I ask,
might you happen to have your Oct 2008 CARB FLOW TEST text saved?

Any chance it can be re-posted here or elsewhere?

Thank You for all your work, shared knowledge, and valuable time.

--------

Here is what Ken Parkman CARB FLOW TEST Text from the other
now gone Forum I was able to get from the Wayback Machine and save:

Ken_Parkman
Carb flow test
02/09/08 at 22:39:45

For various reasons there seems to be a lot of carburetors
around here right now, so I decided to put them
all on the flow bench for comparison. 
 
My flowbench cannot effectively measure a carb cause to do it right
 you need to have a bench that will suck the roof off the shop and
 has a direct power supply from the generating station.
But what I can do is run the bench wide open and then put on different carbs
 and measure the pressure drop, and then I can compare one to another.
 I could check an individual barrel, but that takes fixtures
 I don't have and can't be bothered making. 
 
As you know there is way more to carbs than flow - a point that
 has really been hammered home to me with some dyno and track testing.
 Also as you know factory ratings are pretty much meaningless
 cause they are marketing more than anything. So this is an effort
 to see how much some manufacturers are exaggerating. Do not use this
 data to say one will make more or less power; it's only for interest. 
 
So here is the list of different carbs and their ranking
 flow wise, smallest to largest: 
 
Rank/Carb/part number/rating/comments 
 
 1   Edelbrock   1405   600 
 2   Holley      1850   600   Significantly more flow than Edelbrock 600 
 3   Q-jet       ?      ?     Secondary air flap has a stop to limit opening 
 4   Holley      4777-2 650 
 5   Edelbrock   1407   750   Slightly more than 650 Holley 
 6   Edelbrock   1813   800   Big improvement over 750 Edelbrock 
 7   Q-jet       ?      ?     Secondary air flap opened noticeably more than above Q-jet 
 8   Holley      4780   800   Same dimensionally as a 750,
                              but this carb had a slight TB mismatch. 
 9   Holley      3310   780   Factory GM original 3310, down leg booster 
10   Holley      3310-2 750   Strait booster than above, flows a little better but close 
11   Pro-Systems XC     ?     Built for a mild 327 Chev, noticeably more flow than above Holleys 
12   Holley      4781   850   No choke plate 
13   Holley      80514  1000  Annular booster carb, very small flow difference from 850 
14   Pro-Systems XE     ?     Down leg booster, very significantly more flow than 1000 Holley 
 
A couple of comments: 
 
The Edelbrocks flow significantly less than the same rated Holley 
 
Holley plays games with flow ratings.
Yes a 750 Holley flows more than a Holley 800.
I've heard it before, but this seems to confirm
 a 850 Holley is a lot bigger than a 950.
 Dimensionally the 850 is bigger.
 The 850 with no choke and a Stubstack was essentially identical
 to the annular booster 1000. 
 
Stubstacks noticeably improve the flow. 
 
A fancy CNC milled 2" spacer slightly improves the flow. 
 
The Q-jets were flowed with an adapter that slightly restricted the flow,
 but calibrating with a Holley says the restriction was not much. 
 
I'm going to try to get a few more carbs to add to this list,
 including a factory AFB and MotorCraft.
-------------------------

Ken_Parkman
Re: Carb flow test
Reply #6 - 02/10/08 at 17:10:59

Trying to find some stock AMC stuff, just don't have any here!
 I hope to score a stock AFB and a 4300 to test, I'll post if it happens. 
 
What Reagam said is important. A high flow carb is no good
 if it can't properly atomize fuel at a low delta pressure.
 Only take this data as an interesting comparison. 
 
Of course a really good carb is both high flow and
 can properly control the mixture at a wide rpm and load range.
 A simple flow test cannot tell this.

--------------

Ken_Parkman
Re: Carb flow test
Reply #8 - 02/16/08 at 18:22:16

Those were 2 different Stubstacks, both K & N.
 One is very old (been through a carb fire)
 and has been modified to better fit the 850,
 which seems to have a different height air horn
 then the Stubstack  was designed for.
 The other is an almost new one made from
 a different plastic and fit the 750 very well.
 Both noticeably improved flow,
 but clearly the bigger 850 really liked it, the flow was well up. 
 
The spacer is a really trick CNC milled 4 hole
 translating to an open with a nicely flared 'bullet' in the center.
 But now that I am carefully looking I find it has slightly small bores
 on the 4 hole part. I'm gonna fix that and try again. 
 
Just scored a couple of Demons, a good prepped dyno 750 Holley,
 and a stock AFB. Hope to have a MotorCraft
 and a few more Holleys tomorrow. Will post info 

-------------

Ken_Parkman
Re: Carb flow test
Reply #14 - 04/28/08 at 02:32:16

I FINALLY managed to score some stock AMC carbs
 and get all the data together. I've had 29 carbs
 across the flow bench and it is an interesting exercise. 
 
I've learned carb flow numbers are a game.
Do not assume a carb is bigger because it it rated higher.
The highest flow 750 carb was 150 cfm better the lowest flow 750. 
 
A surprise is the stock MotorCraft 4300.
I scored a OWA4-S, and it's surprisingly good flow wise.
It looks crappy, but flows a tiny bit better
 (not enough to give a number)
 than a Demon 625 or an Edelbrock 600, both of which are pretty much the same.
 A Holly 600 is about 40 cfm better than the BG and the Ed.
 The stock AMC AFB (tested # 4664) is about 40 cfm less
 than the same BG and Ed Carbs.  The Ed 600 is an AFB and is basically
 the same carb as the stock AFB. It has the same bore's and venturi's,
 but the Ed has 1/2 throttle shafts and a little aerodynamic fairing
 to account for the 40 more cfm.
 The 4350 MotorCraft is the same as the stock AFB. 
 
I scaled the carbs on a 0-100 scale, and here are the small carbs 
 
Edelbrock 750   (1407) - 71 
Holley 700      (4778) - 71 
Holley 650      (4777) - 69 
Rochester Q-jet (xxxx) - 67 (small one)
Holley 600      (1850) - 65 
MotorCraft 4300 (xxxx) - 61 (OWA4-S)
Barry Grant 625 (xxxx) - 61 (Road Demon)
Edelbrock 600   (1405) - 61 
Carter AFB      (4664) - 57 
MotorCraft      (4350) - 57

---------------

(4) MORE POSTS ON PAGE 2 -> BUT NOT ON WAYBACK MACHINE !

-------------------


-------------


Link to a http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MySiKQsmWxU" rel="nofollow - Short YouTube Burnout Video



Posted By: jcisworthy
Date Posted: Feb/21/2019 at 5:45am
Originally posted by Randall Racing Randall Racing wrote:

[QUOTE=trrowe]You don't have that much flow because Dean Turk didn't do your port work. When Don Garlits came out of retirement to attempt to break the 300 mph barrier he chose Dean Turk to do all the port work on his cylinder heads and manifolds. Thats how good he is. He has turned away work for years because he's always swamped with work. He will only do port work for true enthusiasts and always achieves the best flow numbers. Dean has been retired for many years, but still does the best port work in the country for a select few. He was a pioneer and early dominating force in the early 60's, First in a Pontiac powered Fuel dragster and later with a Crysler Hemi Fuel dragster.If you don't know of Dean, then you missed out on a truly fine human being that would be just as excited as you are to see you (and help with the best possible porting) tweak as much performance as possible out of your AMC.
 I'll never forget hearing a deafening roar from my shop, and running outside to see Dean smiling and tuning Eddy Hill's Top Fuel dragster right before Eddy retired.
 No finer cylinder head, intake manifold porting guru has ever lived. He always did extra work for the regular "Joe." especially if you wanted performance from a platform that wasn't the typical "performance" vehicle.
Thanks, Dean, Ed, Bill, Jerry.....
 
Yes.... Dean Turk is the man...  My family has worked with Dean since the 60's and all the heads on every Race car or Race truck we have built in the past to current have been sent to Dean...
My heads for my 74 Gremlin 401 X-R are on there way to Deans as we speak...  Amazing Work.

Porting cylinder heads boils down to shapes, sizing and valve job. Nobody has the market cornered because of that, some just do it better than others


-------------
Specializing in dyno services, engine building, and cylinder head porting

rbjracing.com
Phone Number 518-915-3203


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Sep/04/2020 at 3:43pm
I picked up a few more sets of trapezoid heads earlier this year. 2 sets are canted valve(slightly) and one set inline. I also got 1 original edelbrock spider intake with the heads and another unmachined from another gentleman. I plan on building a 426 around the inline set of heads that have 2.125 intake valve. Those heads have a custom heavily reworked torker. Nice on the inside,not so much externally. 

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: Hurst390
Date Posted: Sep/04/2020 at 3:51pm
I'm using them on a Kaplan block I found a few years ago. New never used from an ex AMC engineer. 

-------------
SC/Hurst Rambler

11.62 120

100% Street Legal


Posted By: jcisworthy
Date Posted: Sep/04/2020 at 4:58pm
Very nice!
How much did they raise the intake runners on those heads? 


-------------
Specializing in dyno services, engine building, and cylinder head porting

rbjracing.com
Phone Number 518-915-3203



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net