ok been researching the closed vs open chamber situation.
In general this is what I've learned:
1. open chamber heads typically flow more cfm
2. open chamber heads are typically lower compression
3. closed chamber heads typically flow less cfm
4. closed chamber heads are typically higher compression
that's probably stating the obvious at this point
It seems, in general, the closed chamber head (various makes/motors) is typically regarded as a performance head even at the sacrifice of head flow.
No, just the Chevy 6 cylinder head! SBC heads with small chambers are great flowing and very desirable for power increases, and they do.
My question is why?
Because as I stated previously, they are trying to compare what works with a SBC and other engines and and assuming incorrectly it applies to the Chevy 6, and it doesn't!
Quench; in general it seems this is a desirable relationship and something that can be optimized in several ways to introduce swirl within the combustion chamber.
Using the 194 head on a 250, taking the intake valve shrouding out of the equations for a second, is it wrong to say in a stock 250 shortblock configuration, when the piston is at TDC, it is actually in the hole(i.e. not flush with cylinder deck height)whatever that amount is. Now using the typical FEL-PRO replacement gasket, would the closed chamber head would be desirable?
The 194 closed chamber head will never be desirable on the 3.875" or larger bore engines. The open chamber head has great quench characteristics as do other performance and race closed chamber heads for the Chevy 6, just not the 194 head. The exhaust valve is also terribly shrouded in the 194 head also.I guess my point is, is it possible to mitigate the short comings of the 194 head (the two I know of are the intake valve shrouding and cylinder bore size) so that I can take advantage of both the increase in compression and swirl effect?
This heads chamber has no swirl effect in its design. or am I just not understanding what's going on?
Your just not understanding that this heads chamber was only designed for the tiny 194 engine bore, thats why GM only put it on the 194. They knew this before anyone else did. Tom Langdon, one of Inliners senior inline 6 expert and former GM engineer that worked with these engines will even confirm that the 194 heads problems cannot be overcome when trying to use them on the larger bore engines.thoughts?
Again, it people's incorrect assumptions and misunderstandings based on what works on the SBC and take all they know based on those engines and assume it works on the Chevy 6. They do make closed chamber heads that work great on the Chevy 6, but it isn't the 194 head. Its actually heads that have the chamber designed to be compatible with the larger bore of the 230,250 and 292 engines and are not shrouded. People have been trying to polish this turd into a diamond for almost 50 years....guess what it still is?
In the near 50 years the 194 head has been around, there have been many expert engine builders, professional head porters, GM engineers and many other professionals show countless evidence that the 194 head is very undesirable for any application other than being put on a 194 engine. In that same 50 years, there has never been any evidence show that to be the case for the open chamber head.....just sayin'!
One more thing then you can do what you like. Einstein has a famous saying:
Insanity....repeating the same thing over and over again expecting different results! 
