Cheepy Three-Sixty build

MOPAROFFICIAL said

Good .400-.450, 10 cfm lower than I'd expect on everything below that.
You would kinda think it would hold to .500 with those low lift numbers, but I think ssr is wrong. What are your seat widths?...ah wait...you're not asking for critique...you're graciously sharing., so nevermind ;)

That's a good start though for a magnum.

Click to expand...

Critique is fine. The seat width itself is .060" The S.S.R. is pretty steep and tall--(Just the way I like 'em) I ain't finessing them the way they need to be in order for the flow to hold on. The real problem here is the extreme back cut and angle of it on the G3 intake valve-pretty sure it does not compliment the Magnum bowl/valve seat approach. To be honest I really like the .100-.200" flow rates. Also at first blush the exhaust doesn't look all that great until you consider the 1.55" valve and subsequent sinking to achieve a proper seat form.

Considering these heads flow 189-191 cfm peak on this bench I'm pretty sure they'll work alright. Also this is a SF1020 that ALWAYS displays a good 10 cfm lower than you are used to seeing. Important thing here is If and How the flowbench correlates to the dyno.

Remember I'm using a small hydraulic flat with sub .500" @ the valve with the 1.5 Chev style rockers anyways.

Also the operative word in the title of this thread is "cheap" so I'm not going to invest my time into a $1200-$1500 porting exercise. J.Rob