Inliners International Forums General Discussion Hi Performance 1.94 1.84 valves in "194" and 292 head w/pics

Here are pics of 1.84 and 1.94 in "194 and 230/250/292 open chambered heads.
It is hard to see. The 1.84 valve in a "194" head is spaced the same as a 1.94 valve in a 292 head. These are untouched heads, no porting or relieving is done, yet.

Serious relieving of the Chamber is needed to make the 1.94 valve work in a "194" head. I have recently tried this on my Dyno 292 and the "194" head with a 1.94 valve is down over 10 hp @ peak and also down on tq across the entire rpm range. The head I ran had the same chamber relieving as was used on a simularly prepared 292 head with 1.94 valves. So my findings are "194" heads do not work well and to make them work is wasted as less work on a open chamber head results in more power for less money. In the images with valve open. Lift was apprx .500"

Great work! Nice pics also, as they say pics are worth a thousand words.

MBHD

Tom, I think in all fairness of testing, we have seen that both Hank and Larry have brought up valid points regarding the closed chamber heads, in that they seem to be of the opinion, that with this chamber design, a 1.84" valve, and not a 1.94" seem to yield a better combo, as opposed to a 1.94" valve in a large chamber head or small chamber one, is this correct Hank or Larry. And if so, then maybe to exhaust all efforts to try to either confirm or dismiss this claim, we should throw one of those heads into the mix of testing for the 250 engine, just to say we did explore that claim, so we also can say we didn't overlook the possibility that there might be something to it. And if we still see that the 1.94" large chamber head still shows superior HP and torque gains over the 1.84" valve closed chamber head, then we can in all fairness say that we see no benefits to the closed chamber heads at all, having seen conclusively there is no gain potential with the closed chamber head.
I will also say that there was at least one pair of head comparisons we did try, that we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that one head had a tremendous flow gain over the other, and we saw ZERO HP gain whatsoever between the 2 heads. One head was bone stock with the bolt bosses still it the head, the other head was the same style head with the same size valves and had lumps installed....so never base expectations solely on flow readings. Do you agree Tom that this would be a final test to make the small vs. big chamber head debate a done deal, as far as the small chamber head having any benefits over the big chamber, or do you think we have done enough with this topic.

I can also add, when testing open chamber heads. A 1.84" intake open head was also down on HP and TQ from a 1.94" open chamber head.

Another side note, the "194" head always had less TQ than the open chamber head. And it was properly opened up to be equal the open chamber head. Tom

Then if you did all you can do to the best of your ability,there is no reason for any further testing.



MBHD

My only 2cents is Neither of the heads were unshrouded properly
for a 1.94 valve.Close maybe.So once again my2cent is you did it to the best of your ability.
And i have seen a 2. valve With the Boss still in the head Flow almost as well as a 1.94 valve lump ported head.So once again It has everything to do with the Proper Port work.

I thought we would exhaust all efforts to show and validate the possibility of your claims, so I guess we'll just leave our conclusions where they stand based on our observations already seen, and move on then.

Do any of these heads still exist that could be used on the dyno. Could you put another one together? Do they need more RPMs that Tom spun the 292 to? Now's the time to drag one out. Beater

I still want to see the flow testing comparision between the 194 head w/1.94" intake valve as the same combo w/the larger chamber head.

Should be quite interesting.


MBHD

Tom said he would have that done, maybe this week. I think he has already posted the flow #'s some time back for the 1.94" big chamber, lump port head.

I have posted up #'s on the 1.84 big chamber head. In fact with more practice got flows over 240 on the intakes.

Expect better than that with the 1.94 and open chamber head though. Will see.

Also got some interesting info: Lumps vs no lumps ( on a dyno, not a flow bench)

Found out the flow bench is only a indicator and does not really let you know how the head will perform.

Still learning.

Larry, neither of the heads in the pics have had any unshrouding done to them yet, they are only showing how the stock chambers of each style head is shrouded originally with the respective larger valves that will be put into them, with no work done to them yet.

So, where are the pics after the unshrouding has been done?

What was the purpose of showing stock chambers when there is nothing to compare them with? IE,chambers that have been unshrouded.

The seats or throats have not been cut either,was this a test for something?

MBHD

Yes the head is still around It's on a 12 sec camaro (250).Which has been detuned from 11.80s to keep from having to install a roll bar to the car.

Hank,
These pics are taken just for reference. And not the heads used for dyno testing. Simply pics of stock chambers to show how shrouded they are in stock form. Other members of the Inliners club had asked for these.

Most magazines get kinda' cranky when you reveal photos and text in other outlets before they have the opportunity to have the exclusive on them, since they have already been promised to have first dibs on it. A lot of the more over the top stuff is reserved for them....sorry, but you will have to wait for the article(s) to see some of the more story worthy things. In the pics the chambers are shown for reference one to the other, to show how much more shrouded the small chamber is to the large chamber before they are modified, as pointed out in the opening sentences to start with. Also some of your(those that haven't contributed to the project)questions can't and wont be answered at this time without compromising the integrity of the articles, or even the books that are going to be released about these findings, but if I or we can answer anything that wont jeopardize these things, then im sure you will be told. The whole entire purpose of this testing from before it was ever mentioned on here, has always been about putting these findings into the articles, so we have to protect and preserve as much of the data as possible, until its released at the specified times.

I asked for pictures of the stock combustion chambers. I have not seen a stock 194 head identified as such. The pictures of the stock chambers are informative. An yes, realizing that they are the stock chambers is important.

Written communication is always more difficult, and often has more unintended impact than verbal communication.

As most are aware, the stock bathtub combustion chambers are not very efficient. For the last decade or so, two valve combustion chambers have progressed more to the kidney or cardioid shape.

Tom Lowe is making a good attempt to raise the average level of technical competence here for the home mechanic and hot rodder. We, meaning myself and I probably speak for other home mechanics here, realize that some others here have significant experience and hard earned knowledge. We are thankful for those who share this knowledge, especially those who have made an income working with inline 6's who understandably may not feel as free to divulge this information.

1 vote to leave it alone because I am a guy that has my own BS filter. Lee Lites Crank Shaft Data and Photos and Twisted's Head Cut A Ways are some of the best stuff that I have seen on the board. I like to sift and cull through that stuff and apply what I THINK WILL WORK BEST FOR ME combined with my 60 years of experience.I could care less who KNOWS THE MOST. But put it all in a pile with all this DYNO data... DAMN.... thats a bunch of good stuff ... no matter if you are a racer or trying to to get 25 mpg...!!!

I do care if there will be misinformed information passed around here all based on these dyno results which is not the final say all tell all on every combo known to man on what works or does not work.

The dyno sessions will be a good base of info,for an average street engine.

There is a lot more to learn on what works & what does not work w/these cylinder heads. And getting info from one guy from dyno sessions should be taken like a grain of salt.

Not trying to be rude here @ all, I just see the mistakes being done, main one that he cannot even believe himself that you can use a small chamber head & get great results if properly modified, that's is OK,it just shows he is not experienced enough to know what to do or change his ideas of porting ,valve jobbing,and correct chamber unshrounding.

It takes many years of experience to get a good grapse on how airflow works,port shapes & contours with cylinder heads.

I had my daily street driven Camaro when in my 20's run high 13's get 21 mpg on a normally aspirated 250 6 cylinder. I am not proud of running 13's especially for todays fast cars,,but it took a lot of R & D time w/me & my friend that works @ a cylinder head shop for over 25 years.Where I hang out most of my spare time.

My Camaro was never by any means a drag car. It had front & rear anti sway bars,stiff springs,Koni adjustable shocks,,more set up for road racing than drag racing.It also weighed @ the lightest 3000 LBS no driver.

Guys w/Buick Grand Nationals & Turbo T-Types have been running mid 11's w/a turbo swap,injector swap,chip swap,slicks & race gas(back in the day,not pump gas & methanol injection kit, todays standard)on completely stock 3.8 V-6 & still get 18-21 MPG. Full weight 3800 lb cars.

I have seen many get kicked off the track because they had no roll bars, becasue these were there daily driver cars & take them to the track.

If I were to run 13's when my turbocharged EFI 250 CI L6 Camaro is up & running ,I ll quit posting on this forum!!

BTW,the Camaro is & will be a street diven car,,no trailer for my Camaro. Driven to & from tracks.

I'll keep quite for now.

Moderators delete away,if you feel the necessity.
Note:
No PM's will be responded to if it pertains to my post.
I don't need the headaches.
No flame wars either I'm tired of all that mess.

MBHD

I am not bashing you on your effort,for that I commend you,really!

I just get really irritated if someone states,dont use this or dont use that,because on my head, it did not work , this is all being based from one person doing a engine dyno session, so I get irritated, that's the way I am. Sorry.

Fine,,, state it simple, my findings where this & that,it's very irritating when you state don't use the 194 head.

I am not saying the 194 head made less HP or torque w/your findings,not thinking of any conspiracy ideas.

You can state you opinion, that's fine, I will state my opinion also.
Modirators have the final say in it all, & as I stated before,,moderators delete any or all of my postings for bashing.
Thank you.
Or if they don't I wll try & delete them myself if you like.

The only other thing I disagree w/is about the Offy intake,you sate that the Clifford has more power on all your tests,,,well of course it does your tests start @ 3000 RPM,where the Clifford is supposed to make more power @.
Not everyone drives around town @ 3000 RPM.

It is from idle to 2500 or so RPM is where the Offy will out torque the Clifford. This will be especially true & felt more on 250 CI engines & smaller
MBHD

Now as one other note. I have to agree with Hank as to the Offey
and clifford Issue.I have ran both intakes ON and off the street.For me personaly and MY! motor combo at that time. a crane
RV cam Headers Other then that it was a Bone stock motor. And a
600 holley (stock out of the box) was used. The Offey felt and
performed the best.
Tom as to what your doing I'm noy bashing in anyway shape or
form.To many vary's (tuning,push rods. rocker issues,so on)Lack
of time, money.

The debate is healthy, the squabling is normal human nature, the scenery is great. Keep up the good work Tom, and thanks.

S

I am only paid up until 2014

The best thing that comes from all of this will be for more guys to build more engines and prove each other wrong, that we can all learn from that.
Go ahead and post drag strip numbers or dyno numbers or even fuel mileage, we don't care, just don't stand there and tell me your crap is better then my crap. I can go to any local cruise night and hear that!

Here I will start, stock 250, home made intake with three Corvair carbs, stock exhaust, stock cam, 3100 lb 1937 Chevy truck, ran 17.91@ 74 mph. Thats little over 140 hp at the flywheel and about 125 or on the ground, There I feel better!

The dyno is no way the ultimate answer, its purpose is to show the difference between parts on the day they are tested, same for a chassis dyno, and as stated before this started, dyno's don't work right below about 2500 rpm, 3000 is even better. Depending on the dyno set up, and there are a lot of them, you can make a engine perform as you want. I seen my uncles car gain 15 hp on the chassis dyno, just by airing up the tires , so did the air add HP to the engine? I doubt it.

There are so many ways to one job, it would take a years worth of dyno test to prove anything 100% true. So go build that engine and slap it on a dyno or in a chassis and show me.

Joe

If i missed any that maybe should be pulled from here yet Please let me know. If i pulled any that should have been left sorry.

Beater and other guy's,
Take it easy, I asked Larry to delete the posts that took away from our goal here on INLINERS. Tom

Thanks Larry!

Now lets all cool down and keep the inline stuff coming!

Yeah you do too care Beater, so come on. We were all starting to get a little of course on this one, so now, we have all said our piece and lets get back to making some more HP. We have all gotten past this, so lets move forward, and keep up the good work, its all about teamwork.

Can we just lock this and move on?

I don't think there is a need to lock it out at this time,Beater
I only tried to remove what seemed to have to much conflick/BS
in it.And not much of anything to due with the topic ay hand.So
like i said sorry if I removed more then what wasn't usefull. To
the topic at hand.

Your bud is the deleter he did mine. You spew venom and tell me to relax? When the two of you changed the "topic" of this thread to your vast experience and expertise verses Tom's test results it became another discussion altogether. I defy anyone to find a post by me that is as disrespectful as those by you and Larry on this thread that were left and have nothing to do with valve size or Tom's pictures. I don't mind difference of opinion, or even a ruckus but I truly have a problem with selective censorship has no purpose except protect fragile egos and exert control. I really expected a fair exchange here but I guess I was mistaken. I now understand why so many leave this board and Inliners also. Where's the free exchange? Now it's said and I am done with this, Probably Tom

Ok i only removed what was asked Or at least tried to clean it all up.So now Enough is enough??? So either it can get Back On topic Or We can remove the whole thing and start Over. What is it going to BE?? It will be as simple as that.

Tom also remove the web link (your web link)It can stay in your profile But remove it from Post topic replies.

Hi there

I'm Good. Lets talk about valves and stuff. Would a 2.0 valve even fit in the small chamber without unshrouding?

Tom If you do not remove your web link it will be removed for you.Thank you

Take a look @ this ,it is a 1.94" valve http://img215.imageshack.us/i/194194open.jpg/
http://img80.imageshack.us/i/194194.jpg/

Yep, just wondering what it would looks like before you start to unshroud it. From there you are limited by the bore size? Is the shape from the top of the cylinder to the valve seat part of the magic or is it simply careful metal removal? Is the real trick on the back/port side of the valve? Beater

I would think Twisted6 has some good pics of a properly unshrouded chamber.


MBHD

Do you think he'd share them? From the chamber side would you want a different shape on the intake and exhaust since one flows in and the other out? I've never done any serious head work.

Just go to his profile and click his shop link. Lots of pics there and maybe something of interest or help to you.

Here are a couple pics of my cylinder head.

The 71 cc chamber has been laid farther back to increase the airflow. They were @ 65 cc" IIRC.
The other pic,chamber has not been opened up yet.
Just don't go past where the head gasket seals to the block.
Use blue dykum (SP) @ scribe a line where the head gasket edge is.
Don't get too carried away,,but his will give you an idea how to correctly get more airflow by laying the chamber wall back.




MBHD

Nice picture Hank. Who manufactured the base head? The spark plug is not in the same location as the stock head. It has been moved over to the exhaust valve side to allow more unschrouding around the intake valve, a modern design.