Inliners International Forums General Discussion Hi Performance Ebay internet find lump ports.

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]