Just saw these.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayIS...AAQ:MOTORS:1123
They look really nice & flow numbers looks very good.
Just an FYI.

MBHD

Looks like he already has gotten a response!

Here....

NO worky for me?

and many other preparatory dimensions to develope the best profile for all enhanced Cam Shaft lift flow

I wonder what that means...

Here's the correct link, read the last sentence!!!!

Ouch!!!!


http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/PES-Chevy...sQ5fAccessories

Thanks woody, he must have ended the auction I had linked to last night. That is a completely different one, he also added a lot more to his description in this one.

Looks like we are experiencing the latest contest between Mike, Larry, and Leelites.

Tim

Well If you had read it right Tim you would see there is no contest between Mike and I.Those are my Lumps in His add.And there isn't any contest with anyone ( Leetites,Tom,Mike,Joe smo,Jane Doe)
NO CONTEST Period. Just a New design period like the add says.

Tlowe tested PES lumps & compared to his hi flow lumps, what were the difference in HP?

Did Leelights give Tlowe a cyl head for the dyno tests,did it flow 300 CFM?

MBHD

He offered to give Tom a cylinder head with the PES lumps installed, but never did. Tom actually tested the PES, Larry's lumps and the Hi-Flow all in the same cylinder head.

And the results were?
Probably pretty close to eachother, would be my guess.
MBHD

hank,
They were close.

Maybe these new lumps will really wake up a engine. Esp when most guy's run .460- .525 lift.Not many run cams over .600 for street and most guy's build street engines.

Hopefully they fit better than the old ones. That is one thing I did to improve them.

I may be wrong but I think Larry went back to the flow bench and redesigned his lumps after Tom's test. Larry has spent a good deal of time getting the most out of this philosophy. Anyone would be hard pressed to do better. Regardless of who does them, you can only do so much with a sow's ear.

Sorry Larry, I should have said Mike and Larry vs. Leelites, I am on your side.

Tim

No problem Tim,I just wanted to make clear there isn't any contest Period! As to the fit issue/'s Sand can be imbedded in the sides of some AND not in others But to be sure both side are clean SOME (key word) may need a little more dressing up then others So Yes they could have a little loser fit side to side over others. So really Tom I didn't and Don't see anything Different in yours Either.And i am not talking about just seeing the photos of yours installed in heads With slite spacing on the sides. PES's came the same way Just some a lot worse then others when it comes to fit.I have gotten some THAT the flashing wasn't even taken off.
Also it was no surprize to me Or pretty much anyone else that Lee didn't send you one of his so called 300 cfm heads for testing.
So enough is enough already.

And as for the Tests a good 50% was with the 194 head.And those numbers are what Mike put up in his AD.
(194 head 1.940 Intake valve 1.600 Exhaust valve. Numbers are for comparison of lump build changes made not to measure any type of flow boasting rights. This is just an average head with average head flow numbers.)

And Tom just to show that there are no hard feelings no sawzals were hurt in these test. LOL

And Tom just to show that there are no hard feelings no sawzals were hurt in these test. LOL


Now that put a smile on my face!

I bet that 194 head had a decent amount of chamber work done.

It is nice to see flow changes the lumps can make on the same head as work is done to it. Maybe you could do one, starting with a stock 1.72 port.

To get the 194 head to flow correctly, you just need to know where to remove the material from.

You do not just put a pilot in the intake guide & use a cutter to cut just the side of the chamber.

MBHD

The 194 head is still not a reliable choice, for many reasons:
They are the oldest castings

Most I have found (50%) are cracked

Most will not take a 1.94 intake valve without hitting water

They need alot of chamber work to get the same flow as a open chamber head. After this opening of the chamber, the CC of head also goes up.

Just saying they are not for the common guy.

And you know this how? Have you ever gotton a 194 to flow this good,or any of your large chambers heads to flow this good?

Cc's do go up, but, still smaller than the larger chamber head.
So your overall compression is still higher than a larger chamber cyl head.

On the 194 heads I have had, no cracks, but never had luck using a 1.94" valve, too thin, hit water also..Maybe that was just me cutting too much?

They are still a viable option for a guy that wants to raise compression,w/out having to change pistons.
Most cylinder head work is not for the common guy anyways.
Who has a valve grinding set @ home,guide & seat machine ?etc,etc

If you do not know how to port, you can definately kill the airflow of any cylinder head,& also, if you do not know what angles to cut,widths,throats etc., you can absolutely kill airflow,so, just saying,it's not for the common backyard mech.

Another choice that nobody mentions is the have the large chmaber head welded up a bit to increase quench area & increase compression.

MBHD

If I read the dyno sheets I got from Tom correctly the 194 head killed power even with the lump ports! So why use it? Welding up qurench area is expensive and unless done by a competent welder and finished by an equally competent machinist a waste of time when custom pistons could do the same at a much lower cost and starting with a better flowing open chamber head you are well ahead of the game.

I am sure you read the dyno results correctly.This is another option ,so you would not have to pull out your engine,take it apart,possibly have to bore the engine etc,etc,etc.
I am not saying it is a great option to do,,, it could crack a cyl head during the process of welding.

MBHD

Wow! Does the blue print incicate a raised voice??? The sign of someone with an engineering bent is to use the available information and find the easiest way to solve the dilema, anyone c an make it more complicated. So that is to change pistons and if you need to overbore, you already needed that and can you possibly show me or anyone where the 194 head does work better?? If it does I'd like to know, and what else was done to it to make it work.

I would donate $$ for a dyne/flow test that all of you took part in and were all present during the tests. You could prep your heads in secret or heaven forbid work together. "Dynoing With the Stars" could take place at the next Inliners convention. We could invite Lee Lites. There would be a team of paramedics standing by.

This is an interesting thread but I get lost in the good ,better ,best parts. Better for street is not better for racing. I know we all want the max but the max depends on the whole engine working as a unit. Beater

Your right Beater. The whole premise of these dyno tests to begin with was to focus on the average street build-up that the average Joe would have done to his engine. And guess what, most of the combos tested were the result of what those average Joe's wanted to see tested, because those components were what they would expect to use for their engine builds. These guys are only going to have simple basic machine work done to their engines, and only be buying the common parts that are available like the Clifford and Offy intakes and so forth. There is no doubt or debate, that with extra money, extra labor and extra effort, the 194 head can possibly show gains beyond that of the open chamber head, but extra money, extra labor and extra effort will be required for the 194 head to do that! But that simple average Joe isn't going to spend that extra to do that...thats the bottom line! So dollar for dollar spent on both heads, the open chamber head is the better choice for that average Joe for that reason. Because until you step up and spend that extra to make the 194 head better, the fact that it does raise compression slightly over the open chamber head, showed it to still have no advantage at that point. 99% of the people that will ever build these engines on this forum are after the "most bang for the buck", because they want just a simple, basic, reliable engine to cruise and drive, with maybe an occassional blast down a country road once in a while.

The comparison you keep using Hank shows you gained at least 2 compression points with your head swap, and you should have noticed an increase of some kind with that much of a gain. But in a normal head swap, you will only gain slightly over 1/2 a compression point as we did, unless you again machine the head additionally to gain more(extra money, extra labor, extra effort). So our comparison between these two heads at the time of the swap was consistent with what one will expect doing a normal basic swap, only the 1/2 of a compression point difference between the chamber sizes, all else being the same ie...valve sizes, both had lumps, same cam, same intake and carb, etc... This showed us that you will have to spend more on the 194 head just to become equal to the open chamber heads capabilities....and these 99% of enthusiasts aren't going to do that.

Jaloy45,blue does not mean raised voice. THIS DOES!
Don't leave your caps lock on.[

quote=jalopy45 #4899]Wow! Does the blue print incicate a raised voice??? can you possibly show me or anyone where the 194 head does work better?? If it does I'd like to know, and what else was done to it to make it work. [/quote]

The way to get the 194 to flow good can be done,is it free, no,it has been proven time & time again, by Kay Sissle, Mike Kirby Larry twisted6 & the likes that do know how to prep these heads correctly.

All you need basically to know is where to remove material away from the chamber walls,,like I stated before, you do not just use a pilot in the intake guide & a cutter & just cut one portion of the side of the chamber as was shown here in the past,there is a bit more to do than just that.

If you want to see a 194 cylinder head properly unshrouded combustion chamber like that, I would suggest purchasing/sending your 194 head to Larry twisted6 or Mike Kirby.

CNC-Dude #5585,
you can easily get 1 full point of compression ,simply by switching from a large chamber head to the 194 head that you have milled, & it's not that much to mill.

Simple easy swap to raise the compression, BTW, who said anything about changing pistons because you need an overbore?
jalopy45,,,you can do the cylinder head swap on old engines,new engines,,,, all you change is the cylinder head,bamm, you get more compression.I stated before,,,,, & I will state again,you can easily raise the compression on your 230, 250 or 292 by switching to a 194 cylinder head,do not need to pull your engine,don't need to bore your engine ,change to high compresion pistons & so-on.

This is the most easy way to raise the compression on your engine,by swapping the cylinder head period.



Unbolt your big chamber head, install new head gasket, install your standard or milled 194 head easy,done! It works.More compression ,gives you more torque.


MBHD

I still don't see the point of using the 194 head?? If the open chamber head performs beter than the 194 head out of the box and with lump ports installed for a street engine the choice seems obvious! If your going to the expense of having a head reworked for racing aren't you still better strarting with a better head? Hank I see by your signature you are using a 12 port head and you (MBHD) brought up boring, "This is another option ,so you would not have to pull out your engine,take it apart,possibly have to bore the engine etc,etc,etc." , I can take a set of small valve, low compression SBC heads and make them perform but dollar wise and time wise I'm ahead of the game to buy a better performaning stock head or an aftermarket unit.

jalopy45, the only info you seem to take into consideration is from tlowes dyno tests.That is only one mans tests. Why don't you consider anyone elses info about the 194 head?

I attested that my 194 head made a huge difference in power
1/4 mile times & racing against my friends v-8 cars proved it.
It was the fastest my 250 ever ran normally aspirated period.The chamber walls were not touched for any unshrouding,1.85-1.88" intake valve size I used,(it's been a while)
I still have that same cyl head if you want pics of the chambers?

Mike hotrod6, set a record & went fastest w/a cyl 194 head prepped from our very own Larry,twisted6, over his big chamber cyl head.
The main difference in heads was the compression increase he got form the 194 small chamber head.
Mike Kirby,if you know who that is,will tell you the same, it's a good head to use.

You are not ahead of the game if you or cannot raise your compression.
Opening up the ports, larger valves installed,all decrease air port velosity,which will result in less low end torque,,even more felt when a larger camshaft installed,,you need to make up or counteract the lower port velosity somehow,,,,you do that by raising the compression.
Stock compression on a typical 230,250,292 will be 8-8.5:1

Pistons are down the hole,chambers are bigger,guys install thicker than stock head gaskets through time, lots of variables that will lower compression.

I had 307 SBC flat tops w/4 valve relief pistons 12.1 compression w/my 194 head,you cannot get that compression w/a big chamber head w/out serious mods,I just milled the 194 head flat.
It had 220-230 cranking compression w/a camshaft of 236 degrees duration @ .050.

Dont let people fool you by saying raising the compression will not do anything for a power increase,they are kidding themselves & you.

Always,,, wheather you are racing or a street car,always try & start off w/a better cylinder head,either big or small chamber heads will work fine,you cannot get that much compression out of a large chamber head when using stock pistons,you can however get a decent increase in compression by installing a 194 head.

All I can say is,you should not just take one mans tests as the bible on these engines.

BTW,I have not used my 12 port head as of yet,,,still using my siamesed 3 port,w/upper lumps I made.

MBHD

I find this comment interesting.
I went to this websites classifieds I see a big chamber head for sale
http://12bolt.com/products 250-292 performance head #184

Just wondering,, if you would not want a cracked 194 cyl head to use & work over,then why would you use this (250-292 performance head #184) with big weld between chambers & let alone sell it for $1000.00"?
Confused

Free bump advertizing.

MBHD

The ad says $1100 and the advantages are larger valves and better breathing, thusly more oomph on the asphalt. Tom ran those tests for street engines not race engines and the 194 head did not perform as well as the open chamber head. It's right there in the dyno read outs, with and without lump ports installed the 194 had lower HP and torque overall. Race heads are a whole different ball park, I have a set of large port Brodix heads that if I installed them on a street engine it would fall flat on it's face. Oranges to oranges and apples to apples.

jalopy45,
I think you have a misconception on what is a race engine or race cylinder head.
If you simply unshroud the 194 cylinder head chambers,this does not make it a racing head,does it?
Just because some people cannot get any cyl head to flow good,does not mean you cannot get the head to flow,you would just need to be shown how to do it,pay someone to do it for you.

On the $1000, my mistake, so $1100.00 & you can get a cyl head that was welded & repaired,,,,great!
The last part of the page says: Paypal $1000.00In stock
What is it you can buy on the bottom of that page using Paypal for $1000?
Anyways,
My 194 cyl head is far closer to a stock head than a race head.

It's just milled more,oversized valves, pocket porting,, so It gave me more compression & more power everywhere.
The chambers on my 194 are untouched
Like I said before,his tests are not the bible.

Just a suggestion but maybe ask other people ,outside of this forum about the 194 head,I already know what tlowe says about the 194 head,dont need to keep reading his dyno sheets & going to his website & spewing that stuff over here.
One other thing about the 250 dyno tests is when exactly did the Fluiddamper start to let go?
I suggested to tlowe to retest Tom Langdons header manifolds after he installed a different crank assy & different damper,reason being,(because IIRC, the damper let go during the testing of the Langdons manifolds VS headers),,when a damper starts to shake loose, it will absolutely kill the output of the engine.
Were the tests w/the 194 head done later in the testing,when the damper had been shaking loose(& nobody noticed),eating up the end of the crankshaft?
Another thing about the 194 head (during dyno testing)is that he used too large of an intake valve & barely unshouded the valve/s.
FYI, before the dyno tests were done ,I suggested for tlowe to mill the 194 cyl head to take full atvantage of the increase in compression it could give especially when running the larger camshafts that require more compression,he did not do that.

Just in case you did not know this,, Mike Kiby has his own dyno.

Find another source jalopy45,there is a world of wealth & knowledge outside of tlowes world. Try it!

Also you are saying that the 194 head prepped to flow well will not work on a street engine, it will fall on it's face?Port volume is too large? The higher compression helps that from happening. The ports are not all hogged & the port velosity is down(mainly reshaped) like they would be on your large Brodix heads. This is not the case. Apple to apples,,same heads we are talking here,not some aftermarket head like your Brodix heads for comparision.

He has a lot to prove on a vehicle ,real world street driven vehicles & race track scenarios.His fastest turbo car ran 14's @ the track last time out???
As far as i know he is not setting any records for street cars or track cars.
And for the record, I am not setting any records either.LOL
Guess we will have to wait & see what the future holds.

My fastest time @ a track normally aspirated time in the 1/4 mile was 14.3,, this was a very old combo, 4 bbl carb, 4 speed,9.5:1 compression 250 ci.4.10's 3000 + ft altitude track,,,your times are usually 1/2 second slower time than @ a track w/800 ft altitude.So the 14.3 would have been a 13.8 in the 1/4.

With the 3 DCOE Webers 12:1 compression,194 small chamber head,th350 3000 stall 10" converter 4.10's mid 13's

W/Paxton,8-9 psi of boost,blowing throught the 3 same DCOE Webers
th 350 3000 stall 4.10's ran mid 12's ,not record breakers by any means,but this is & always has been my everyday street driver Camaro.
Never set-up for drag racing.More so of a road racer set-up
Koni shocks, front & rear anti sway bars,lowered,BBC front coil springs,thick multi leaf rear springs & so-on.
Kinda heavy of a car really,,most of the time it weighed 3300 + lbs & no driver.

As a side note,every cyl head shop,fab,shop I have been to have given me a tour of there machines,,porting tips,shown various cylinder heads,how to weld, & basically any questions I have asked, have been always answered.
Never have I've been told ,thats top secret,can't show you,get out! etc.

I might suggest if any of you guys have any interest on doing your own porting or unshrouding your valves,,go to a high perf cyl head shop,they most likely will show you some cylinder heads of a properly looking chamber that is unshrouded.

Some guys will give you an example how to unshroud your chamber on your own cyl head so you can learn from there example.

If there are not any shops near you to do this type of help ,send your heads to a shop that can do it for you.
For just unshrouding all your chambers,, it should not cost that much.
I have done this type of work @ home & it does not take that long to do it.

Your chamber CC's can even be off from eachother (i wouldn't suggest doing that) & the engine would not run rough or bad,just your power will not be as high as it could be if there all the same.

I have seen SBC engine run a 64 CC head fully ported on one side & an open chamber non ported 76 cc head on the other side & it actually ran pretty good. Claimer/cheater engine for roundy round cars


MBHD

What would be nice is to see some substantiated data to back up your claims of the 194 head, the dyno runs Tom did do not do that. It doesn't matter if your suggestions for head prep were used or not, the idea was to use available parts and provide a data base instead of relying on what someone said or thought. Facts. Some people probably still feel the Offy is a bettter intake but the tests showed the Clifford had a slight edge. The turbo test was not a full blown set-up but rather one that could be thrown together on a budget, but it provided a base to work from. I'm certain another dyno bash could be arranged as the funding is probably out there if the interest is.

Hey, I know I'm not an OFFICIAL II memeber, just the BB but I'm staying away from this board because it seems all I see is MBHD do nothing but bash others efforts, except his frends. I really don't know what he has against Tom but I've got the idea that He hates Tom for selling the Lump Ports like Larry's. Yea, I know Hank,......didn't need anymore people here anyways.....RIGHT! (If it means anything...I have LARRY's lumps and Tom doesn't hate me he helps me)

BTW.....wonder how many really do join the II after a few weeks, month, years on this BB?????

CNC is describing me as one of the many that have been helped on this forum. 'Most bang for the buck', simple and reliable describe my build.

I have less than $1350 in my engine and I have a setup that'll spin the tires in a couple of gears, won't give up on any hill at 65+ mph and I'm getting just under 17 mpg in a 4600 lb truck. That's pretty respectable for the money spent, I think, considering the starting point. As far as reliability, I have over 11k miles on it with one break down (broke a rocker), and if I would've known what I was looking at when I installed the rockers, then I would of known that I needed new ones.

Of the money I spent I have $400 in the head consisting of valves, lumps and machine work. I'm sure that Larry and others can make a 194 head run and flow like like the wind, but I believe that the machine shop bill alone would be more than my total head expenditure, and maybe more than double. Let's remember that we're not preaching to the choir, but rather that we're trying to build and help the congregation ('the average Joe'.)

Just one guy's opinion, so take it for what it's worth. Thanks

My dad has been racing since the late 50's and I have been into cars since I was little, so all we know is testing and racing.

Dyno's are great for testing, but until you get the engine in a car and at the track, its all for bragging rights. I have seen first hand 500 hp dyno engines run slower times then stock engines due to the power band used to get the 500 hp. Same with large cfm heads, most cars slow down or loose ET if not done right.

We spent an entire day at the track just test intake manifolds on dads Pontiac, 13 of them. Each one was run twice. His station wagon will repeat times with in a few thousands each run, 11.41@117, at 4100 lbs it doesn't spin the tires. We can tell even the slightest change in performance due to the consistency. We still got grief because we didn't change the carb or cam or what ever to make one run better then the other. Our point was to test against each other in the same weather and on the same engine at the same track. Theres no arguing about it!

This is the same system we used to check mufflers, two runs each along with a sound meter. Again guys bitched because the runs were not altered to help one or the other.

This is what needs done with the heads. Flow bench numbers don't mean squat if it won't run at the track. I am not talking about all out 8000 rpm race engines. Bolt them to a everyday car with mild up grades (average Joe's) and see what 300 cfm does to a engine. I'm betting there isn't going to be much difference in any of the three types on a mild engine.

What it does come down to easy of installation and fit. The average machine shop probably hasn't seen a inline 6 in a lot of years, let alone built one, so adding lumps isn't going to be a job for anyone except a custom engine builder or hands on type of guy. The guy that repairs Honda cylinder heads is not going to like adding poorly fitting lumps!

And when I hear things like, "you have to know where to cut", it just makes me mad! Why should this be such a secret that you can not show it or explain it, why bother bringing it up other then to brag about it. That right up there with cam grinds to secret to tell, "just buy it and you will be happy". Don't waist our time with out data to back it up, racing with out time slips is meaningless. If you know something but are unwilling to tell about it, just keep quite or send a private note and talk off board.

Sorry about getting off track, but come on, does every post have to get into the same arguments?

Joe

Why just tell them "you have to know where to cut"?

There is no easy answer, there isn't even a complicated answer - it's a book.

Every casting is different, and different again based on valve sizes, chamber shape and volume, lift, RPM, engine size etc.
People looking for an easy answer don't understand the question.

Chrysler used to sell a porting template for the 906/452 RB head, which showed how much material to remove just from the throat at 12 different clock positions, intake and exhaust are different, and left & right handed ports are different. Even if you had it in your hand, if you didn't already know why it wouldn't help you.

Funny thing: when you tell someone the opening & closing figures on a "secret cam", the first thing they do is find one in the Summit catalog with a few numbers that match, and then come back and say "I found it!".
No, you didn't.

Head development is a very labor-intensive process, in which much time & money are spent before you make $1.00 back (and sometimes you never do, except as a lesson: "don't do that again").
Why would someone give that away?

[quote=I attested that my 194 head made a huge difference in power
1/4 mile times & racing against my friends v-8 cars proved it.
It was the fastest my 250 ever ran normally aspirated period.The chamber walls were not touched for any unshrouding,1.85-1.88" intake valve size I used,(it's been a while)
I still have that same cyl head if you want pics of the chambers?

MBHD [/quote]

MBHD:
As you may know I am trying to match what is going on here with my computer program the Gonkulator. I fully agree with you that you can't go by any single set of data - they all add up, and different things can affect any given test or test series.

If you have a picture of your 194 combustion chamber as mentioned above and can post it or email it that would help.

Also, your Camaro seems to have run good - it's hard for me to get my computer to "run" that fast. Do you recall any of the following:

On the 14.25 run (4spd) - MPH? 60ft?

On the mid-13s run (auto) - ET? MPH? 60ft?

I assume those were raw, uncorrected times?

On both runs -
3300 lb w/o driver? Wow that is heavy, just confirming.
Open headers or can you describe the exhaust?
Cam specs, I had 230-230 duration for your cam, not sure if a guess or prior post, is it 230-230 or 236-236? Confirm other specs?

What I do think is great about these sometimes fiery threads is, they sure show the continuing and detailed interest in this old siamese-port iron. That is good!

First off, I do not hate tlowe or anyone for that matter.
If you call bashing, telling it like it is ,then I guess it's bashing.,That is not how I see it though.
I do not have anything against tlowe.
If I happen to disagree about any subjects,that's what it is,a dissagreement.
The problem/s between tlowe & twisted6 are there problem/s ,not mine. I do not get involved.

MBHD

The dyno tests showed how to build a engine with parts for low $$$ Perfect for that.
You proved that an inline can be built for low dollar. Great for you, congrats.
You are correct about getting these heads to flow great, it is going to cost money,but that can be said for about any engine.
It all starts w/the cylinder heads for making power & the rest is in the combination.
Porting alone is very pricey @ all shops.
1% people here only want the most bang for the buck,,,not sure about that, but I could be wrong.
For the record,all my views are not strictly for racing application only.
I never set-up any car for track use only.
I have given some advise to Steven Mighty6 & Douglas more so.8.6 @ 165 IIRC

If it was cheap (low dollar)to port heads, unshroud chambers larger valves,etc, I think alot more people would all want a little more ummph in there 6's,,no?

MBHD
[quote=JimW CNC is describing me as one of the many that have been helped on this forum. 'Most bang for the buck', simple and reliable describe my build.

I have less than $1350 in my engine and I have a setup that'll spin the tires in a couple of gears, won't give up on any hill at 65+ mph and I'm getting just under 17 mpg in a 4600 lb truck. That's pretty respectable for the money spent, I think, considering the starting point. As far as reliability, I have over 11k miles on it with one break down (broke a rocker), and if I would've known what I was looking at when I installed the rockers, then I would of known that I needed new ones.

Of the money I spent I have $400 in the head consisting of valves, lumps and machine work. I'm sure that Larry and others can make a 194 head run and flow like like the wind, but I believe that the machine shop bill alone would be more than my total head expenditure, and maybe more than double. Let's remember that we're not preaching to the choir, but rather that we're trying to build and help the congregation ('the average Joe'.)

Just one guy's opinion, so take it for what it's worth. Thanks [/quote]

Last thing, since it seems most people here still think the 194 small chamber cyl head is no good to use under any circumstance,,, I might suggest giving or selling them to Mike Kirby, Larry aka twisted6 or Mr hotrod, I am sure they can do something w/them.

MBHD
Just a thought.

Quote from Randy S. Hager
Hey, I know I'm not an OFFICIAL II memeber, just the BB but I'm staying away from this board because it seems all I see is MBHD do nothing but bash others efforts, except his frends. I really don't know what he has against Tom but I've got the idea that He hates Tom for selling the Lump Ports like Larry's. Yea, I know Hank,......didn't need anymore people here anyways.....RIGHT! (If it means anything...I have LARRY's lumps and Tom doesn't hate me he helps me)

BTW.....wonder how many really do join the II after a few weeks, month, years on this BB?????

Randy,
Thanks for the nod, I try to help anyone that wants it. Working on these inline engines is just something I enjoy doing. Some guy's go to the bar each night, I go to the shop. It's alot closer to home. Had my daughter out with me making Lumps last night. She likes running the mill and is getting comfortable doing it. The boy is helping me work on the farm buggy and is starting to get excited. Know I would at his age.
Sorry we could not meet up in Texas this summer. There will be another time.

Quote by JimW
CNC is describing me as one of the many that have been helped on this forum. 'Most bang for the buck', simple and reliable describe my build.

I have less than $1350 in my engine and I have a setup that'll spin the tires in a couple of gears, won't give up on any hill at 65+ mph and I'm getting just under 17 mpg in a 4600 lb truck. That's pretty respectable for the money spent, I think, considering the starting point. As far as reliability, I have over 11k miles on it with one break down (broke a rocker), and if I would've known what I was looking at when I installed the rockers, then I would of known that I needed new ones.

Of the money I spent I have $400 in the head consisting of valves, lumps and machine work. I'm sure that Larry and others can make a 194 head run and flow like like the wind, but I believe that the machine shop bill alone would be more than my total head expenditure, and maybe more than double. Let's remember that we're not preaching to the choir, but rather that we're trying to build and help the congregation ('the average Joe'.)

JimW,
I did those dyno tests just to be able to help guys like you, me and countless others. Most guy's simply want the most bang for the buck, proven formulas. There are not enough people working on these engines anymore and so much knowledge has been lost. Machine shops will look at you cross eyed when you bring in a inline project. Most of the kids working in those shops have never touched a inline project. I am glad your truck turned out so good. It has made a very dependable cruiser for you. If I remember correct, you and your sons project too.

Hank,
Maybe you have had good experiences with a 194 head. Great. I ran one on my N/A 292 for many years. It had a Clifford 270 cam and 1.94/ 1.6 valves and porting. It ran good, had a lumpy idle and only put down a 16.9 in the 1/4. Always thought something was holding it back. Now I know the flow was not as good as it should have been. After doing these dyno tests, testing all those cams, heads, intakes combos. Would I run a 194 head, NOPE.

Is it a option, yes. It can gain you easy compression and may be really good to use on a low rpm engine. But ussually low rpm engines are working hard at a low rpm and will suffer from detonation easier if the compression is turned up. The 194 headt will limit the flow on intake and exh valve. The only way around this is the open up the combustion chamber. It is hard to get a shop to install Lumps/ oversize valves/ port inline heads economically. Who is going to do chamber work economically?

That is why I keep saying the open chamber head is the best head to start with. Most guy's build street engines.

I was also at the track when MRHotRod 6 (Mike Bareli) blew his engine at the Iowa convention in 2008. It was a bad deal. Helped pull the engine down to review the damage. That engine had a Open chamber head.

If it not a open chamber, then it is one heavily modified 194 head. Well it is certainly opened up in this pic.

Tom

This is the chain lube thread of inliners.

Rick...that might have went over the head of some of the folks here...my self, I use to make up my own chain lube. "O"ring chains settled that conflect. Jerry

HEY TOM
I have a NEWS FLASH for you, You DIDN'T have clue what you were looking at and here are the head casting numbers
K2162 =1962 3824435 SMALL CHAMBER HEAD. And this head is still good enough to be USED as a nice test bed As WE already knew what the head flowed with the OLD STYLE lump port.
So and YES we still have and It's not a Open/Big Chamber head.
And If you think I'm BS with the casting numbers I have Photos as well. And the Head is still Blue Just like you seen it.

Call me ignorant, but HUH.....?

And by the way, who's Dan Bunch?

Chain lube aka spirited discusion aka ego vs ego. What started out as a question about the viability of the 194 head vs the open chamber head for a budget street build it's gone all over the place because of personal feelings. I entered into it by wanting to see data from all sides that could be used to reach an educated decision on my own build for another street engine. Dan Who??

Randy, Good to see you, don't be discouraged. We all have to run for cover when the "Dive Bomber" makes a pass. He mostly shoots blanks. Beater

Well I wouldn't heavily,But yes it has been slightly reworked. But hey what can i say I don't have a clue.Right lol

Now will someone please give me some substantieated figures that will help me compare the 194 head to the open chamber head for street use. No blanks please.

Tom,

I not only had a good expeience w/the small chambered 194 head ,,I had the best experience w/it.
With 12.1:1 compression, it was an absolute torque monster,w/(DCOE's) even more so.

OK Tom,
you @ least tried a 194 head out on your own vehicle,,great, so after you were thinking the 194 head was holding you back, did you install a big chamber head for comparision?????? If so

Did it run better???
Who did the work on the 194 head,boss not removed???
Do you still have that cyl head & any pics of it?

As far as you wanting to use a 194 head,, I would not want it either with those low flow numbers & dyno numbers.

BTW, do you have any good 194 cyl heads lying around that you are not going to do anything with, except maybe a door stop?

Tom,
just curious,, do you think there is anything holding your 65 Elky back?
It weighs 3600 lbs,292+ cubic inches,efi intercooled & turbocharged ,700R4,355 gears,2400 stall correct?
If I am incorrect,lets break down all the specs on the Elky if you will.
Need to update all the newer mods old mods posted in one post.
That way people can follow/copy your recipe.

MBHD

Yep, Still have that head. Can get pics of it. Got a few other 194 heads to be worked up.

Also willing to do another post if that will help.
Going to do your car too?

There were a few more questions from my previous post/s & requests.

Selective answers?

Why would you work up the 194 heads,you would advise against anyone using it,correct?

Another post would be great on your turbo build,we can all learn a lot, really.
Pics would be great of the 194 head you used.

Can't work on car,no $$$ & no time. Times are tough.

MBHD

Selective answers???

Sorta like selective hearing.

Yes, I asked more than one question & only had one answered.

MBHD

Example: I ask you what are the specs on your tubo, what size engine do you have? Are you going to drive it on the street.
What octane fuel do you use?

Are you using one injector per port?
Your reply,
I have a 250 ci engine.
Jalopy45

"Out of the blue of the northern sky......" Funny how guys who insist that others document every thing they post expect their own memories be accepted as gospel. Makes me glad I've never done anything requiring proof or worth remembering. Beater

You have a very,very dry humor.
Most people would consider deadpan humor to be rude.
But the thing is we do understand you & no ,you are not funny.
Don't you have another forum to disrupt?

Just talking to myself,dont mind me.

MBHD

Selective answers???

I looked over some automotive machinist refernce books and if they are correct(and at $65 a volume I will assume they are) to raise the compression on a head, a cut of 0.010 will raise the compression from between .141:1 to .200:1 depending on the the swept volume of the compression chamber so if an unmolested 194 head will raise the compression .500:1 it would take a minimum of an additional 0.075 cut to reach a 2 point increase in compression.

Automotive technology: a systems approach, Volume 2 By Jack Erjavec

......after following this post, I'm glade I race a Buick 8...

Just did some quick calcs, guessing at a few things but to give an idea:

250cid+30-over
58cc head
.040 gasket
.000 deck
flattop piston (0cc dish)
11.59CR

The 70cc head would give
9.97CR
(Gain of 1.6 CR with the small head - at this level!)

Back to the small head, 58cc
11.59CR
Mill head .020
Guess that the gain is about 2/3 of that by milling the block, since milling the quench area takes away no volume
12.03CR

So if you started with the above, my guess is you'd have to mill the head .020" to get 12.03CR.

Now, my small head is 59.4cc bone stock as I last measured it, and chamber work will normally make it bigger. So, you might end up having to mill .040" or so to really get 12.0cr.

Even on my stock spare 250 -
Compression with my stock large head
72.5cc measured
8.15CR (a real snoozer)

With my stock small head
59.4cc measured
9.29CR
Gain of 1.14 CR.

So the small head gains 1.1 to 1.6 CR on things we would typically build. Does it also gain torq/power? That I suppose is the topic of this very enthusiastic (even fun?) thread. Hey, at least people care!

It all depends on who you talk to.

If you talk to Tom,no gain, but he stated he has 194 heads to get worked on,why even work on those heads if they are no good?


MBHD

Hank, sit down and have a beer ,no one said the 194 head was no good. What was said was the 194 head will require more work to use on the street than an open chamber head. The dyno pulls showed that with and without lump ports the open chamber head is a better choice using the parts (cams, intakes,etc.) that are commonly found on street engines. If you like your head good, use it, no one is aking you to get rid of it, I'm not going to use one because I've yet to see anything to back up any claims that the 194 works better.

Hank, in case you think this is an attack against you, it is not, I understand passion for causes, Frenchtown Flyer has it for Fords (shudder) EFI-DIY is stuck on the 4200 and I'm certain we have someone that feels a Buick straight 8 is Nirvana. Different strokes for different folks.

I can amuse myself quite well here thank you. No color no caps. Beater

I can see you are just learning internet etiquette.
Seeing different color words must have amazed you I guess.

That's Ok sooner or later you should be able to control your temper,remember to count to ten.

Pretty new to the language too. What's a 10?

Don't need to state the obvious,we know.

Jalopy45,

I believe Tlowe has always said, he would never recomend using a 194 cyl head period,this is probably because he has not had any luck w/one to flow good.Maybe someday he will & maybe then change his mind,I really dont care if he does or does not, that's fine.
The 194 cyl head does not need to be a fully reworked cylinder head to work good. It takes a little work,but like I said, I used smaller intake valves & made the chambers pretty small for max compression. You would be foolish, or just plain, have no clue to install a 1.94" intake valve in the small chamber cyl head & not do any chamber work.

It seems like Tlowes original 194 head had 1.94" intakes valves & no chamber work done.There was something holding back his 292.
It was the 194 head? who knows, he did not install a large chamber head to compare on a vehicle that actually runs on the street.But like I said,if it had 1.94" intake valves,that would be holding it back tremendously w/no chamber work.
BTW,still awaiting for those pics.I do not need pics, I know what it looks like as I tried different size valves in 194 heads over 20 years ago.
Pics would be for peeps here to see it first hand.

You are only considering his dyno tests to be the only possible source for cyl head info,do you think Larry is lieing about using a 194 cyl head on Mikes Camaro? Is Mikes record setting runs using the 194 head all lies? He has his time slips,probably has video also,w/larger chamber head runs & when changed to the small chamber head? Who knows,maybe twisted 6 can post some vids?If you had talked w/Mike Kirby & he told you the 194 head would be a good choice for a certain application,would you think he would be lieing to you, you would have a hard time believing that, correct.
Do you think he would work a 194 head ,sell it to you, knowing full well the 194 head is just plain no good?

Of course you think I am lying because I did not video tape my illegal street racing using a 194 cyl head.. I am a little smarter than doing that.

Anyways,, why would anyone want to lie about or give bogus info & want anyone to use a small chamber 194 head if infact it's not a viable option to use,it serves no purpose to this inliner forum to lie, do you think I want to be known as a lier,exaggerater.
Info I go from is mainly my own personall experience,if I do not know something , I will say, I don't know, or refer you to someone that will probably know.

I want every inline 6 to spank some V-thingy butts.

BTW, wheres my beer?

I do not take it personal as an attack torwards me @ all,but when some say comments about me(making up lies) for no reason,then I get defensive,guess I need to drink beer while I type?

If someone states my car runs 14 seconds in the 1/4 mile(& lets say it does), that is not an attack, just stateing the truth/facts.
If I post on you tube videos of my car running bad & is slow,& someone says my car looks slow,,,well that's because it is slow,can't complain about that.
There is a difference if someone is lieing about someone else & no facts involved & just plain putting them down, but if you state facts here about someone else,people say it is an attack.


Sorry , but sometimes the truth hurts.
If someone says my car does not run & it looks like pile of crap,should I get mad about it because they are stating the truth?Here is the pile.

I do not think so.
About using caps ,you should know what that means,how long have you been on the internet,& you are just learning this now??the colors to use,I guess you dont like it ,too bad.Mr. Hothead
MBHD

But your personal attacks on others should be tolerated because????? If someone responds in like kind they have anger management issues? If they use their keyboard in a manor unlike your own they are forum illiterate? When you and Al Gore were inventing the internet one of you should have published a took on internet etiquette. By now you could have been on a parr with Emily Post.

If this banter wasn't scattered all thruout the day, I would tend to blame it on beer-thirty, or the 'Cheers' syndrome. You all need to give it a rest, or take a time-out. While it can be entertaining, the same old saw tends to wear on people, and I can't have all this fun because I am supposed to be the 'adult supervision'.

Tim

No worky

No harm,try it again.
MBHD

Gentleman I drive a 41 plymouth 2 dr sedan it has a 250 chevy six with a 700 R 4 tied to a 9" ford with 3.50 gears. The engine has a open chamber head with 1.94/1.60 stanless pro flow valves and the head bolt boss is shaved to a point and and thined plus ports arre polished with some bowl work. The cam is a complete kit from Comp cams every thing from the gear on the crank to the rocker arm nuts, 260 H grind. The block is bored .030 over and decked around .018 (trusting memory but I'm close) 307 pistons ARP rod bolts in rebuilt stock rods. The cyl head was cut about .020 to clean it up. I run a complete MSD ign (distributor,coil and 6A box). I run a Q-jet setup for a V6 GM engine (85 Astro). Exhaust is a 292 manifold with the three bolt 2 1/2" out back to muffler which has two 2 1/4" outlets then piped out rear to edge of back bumper.
Everyone talks about what works well on the street and what doesn't. I tow my T roadster behind my Plymouth with no problems, we tow at legal highway speeds. If you doubt this talk to people who was at Iowa in 2008, or in North Carolina at the NTBA nationals in 2009. I live in Ohio. I think this gives an example of what can be done with an inline six. By the way the car is air conditioned and we use it all the time.
This is a no BS example of actual street use not what someone thinks. By the way it requires 89 octane fuel in flat country and likes 92 in the mountains.
Foot note don't bad mouth big block Ford sixes I put one in my roadster and it is amazing the performace to dollar ratio.

Big Bill, That sounds like a great ride with a carefully built engine and dive train. What is the rear tire size and what RPMs are you turning at highway speeds in OD? Do you have any pictures of the head bolt boss treatment? Are you towing the "T" to the races? Beater

big bill I.I.
sounds like a good combo.
Question,the 260 H cam, what compression do they recommend & what is your compression ratio?

Don't know why anyone would bad mouth a Ford 300, cyl head is way better than ours.

Thanks

MBHD

I was at IOWA 2008- GREAT RIDE!!!! 1 OL REDNDCK

Tires are 215 x 75 15s on 7" rims in back 6"rims in front.
I don't have pictures of the head work but we cut the boss to a point on the manifold side and rounded the valve side to help prevent a dead air pocket as the air passed the bolt boss. It is very thin on the sides of the boss, I worried about cracks at first but 8 years later and a lot of miles it is still running fine. Hank I don't have the cam card in front of me but it is still available on line from comp cams.

I run a similar spec'd engine in my Nova wagon except for the cam and carb, I used a 268H and kit and a 500 cfm Edelbrock carb all run thru a Saginaw 4 speed. I makes for a peppy little street engine and can still get decent mileage and pull a trailer to the swap meets.

Jalopy 45
I had an Edelbrock on mine and it ran just a little rich, tried changing jets and rods made it better but not right. Then a friend of mine that runs a carb shop suggested my most hated carb a Q-jet. I said no way there junk. He said bolt this one on and try it for six months and if you don't like it bring it back if you do bring me $150.00. So I said OK, bolted it on drove it local a couple weeks then drove it to the NSRA nationals in Louisville and back, then took him the 150 and quit bad mouthing the Q-jets. What he explained was the Q-jet was designed to correct the problems that the AFB had and the biggest problem is most people don't have them adjusted right. Both my power and mileage increased.

And, so much for "calculating the CFM"...

Never owned,knew of,seen,are heard of a Edelbrock that ran good enough to suit me.. They RUN me out of talent in a hurry !!!

Sean Murphy of SMI Fuel Systems in Huntington Beach does the Holley on our LSR roadster and is an expert with Q-jets. He is well known for them in NHRA "stock" racing. He doesn't have a website that I know but has been very helpful to anyone who calls and talks to him. I would definatly use a Q-jet on a street engine because of it's versatility.....Good Luck

The reason I used the Edelbrock was a suggestion from Tom Langdon, and so far I'm happy. I think a lot of it is personal preference and tuning abilities. I'm cdertain there's people on this board that would say that a (insert name) carb is the best and the rest are a pile of (insert term). The same would go for ignition systems, intakes etc. Personally I like whatever works best and keeps working, if I find something better I'll switch so now I'm going to a U-Pull It yard to find a V6 van with a carb to keep and rebuild for a spare and maybe try it.

WELL SAID !!! I agree..J

I think a lot of it is personal preference and tuning abilities.

Some of it has to do with your prior experience. If you tried everything you could think of, and it still leaked, blah you're not likely to recommend one.
I've had nothing but good results with QJ since my 1st adventure in 1970, so I'm comfortable with them.
OTOH, Carter ThermoQuads make me nervous, even though my 1974 Dart 360 runs just fine.
Some older stuff can be sorted out, if you just do some homework. Here's an older example for Harleys: http://www.victorylibrary.com/L-BK.htm

Gee I wonder who that is (Victory Library)??? I have Linkert cars on my VL (36) and my UL (38) and never had a problem with either of them except for dirt in the needle seats. Now waiting to see what you come up with for the 6's.

A well tuned Q-Jet is hard to beat for both economy and power. I don't understand them but I don't bad mouth them.

Doug Roe was probably the first guy out with a Rochester book, back in the early '70 that covered Q-jets. He used them on as little as Chevettes and up to of course the 455 Buicks,Pontiacs,Olds, and the 500 inch Eldos. Like a Weber almost every thing is tuneable. Many parts are getting hard to find since everybody has gone to FI. They had a double pumper features, and with the metering rods both primary and secondary,you could change the sizes as well as the tapers, a lot of flexibility, adjustable secondary air valve,different rate power piston springs and flowed stock to 800(+). Wish I had 4 or 5 more of them now. Mercedes, on their carb'd V8's had their version of them. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

Some QJ negatives:
Most manifolds need an adapter, and these typically have very narrow gasket surfaces and are leak-prone.
QJ has small bowl capacity - harmless in an L6.
Tuning the secondary needles by hangar letter is pretty tough to learn - I'm still fuzzy on the effects so I work around it.
There are several combination of primary MJ + metering rod that provide very similar cruise mixture for a specific engine, and as many as your patience permits should be compared.
The fuel inlet fitting is easy to strip - common cause of cheap price.

thats what they make jb weld for