small block cyl head question

-
1wild&crazyguy said:
hey you better look harder, la-x rhs....

magnum heads suck.

i have ported j heads that flow over 270 cfm, ported factory mags don't go there EVER.
Click to expand...

There's a lot more to a cylinder head than just flow. Velocity, turbulence, runner shape, the face of the valves.. the list goes on. As an overall package, the Magnum heads are way ahead of the J heads. Yes, you can port the J heads to flow more, but like I said, there's more to making power than just flow.
 
gilgalad1138 said:
There's a lot more to a cylinder head than just flow. Velocity, turbulence, runner shape, the face of the valves.. the list goes on. As an overall package, the Magnum heads are way ahead of the J heads. Yes, you can port the J heads to flow more, but like I said, there's more to making power than just flow.
Click to expand...

show me where the rhs heads are diff in that respect between la & magnum.

i've studied those mag heads and they are worthless beyond stock form, and even then...pedastal rockers , are you kidding??
 
btw...when you have 270+ by .500 like my j heads, trust me...theres plenty of velocity.

and the valves ...i run nail head 11/32 stem valve and ported for them ,yes that matters too.

btw..when you go turbulent...the flow go's away.

distribution in the port is another story.
 
I hear ya....reasons like this I will never run Magnum Engines/Heads....Pedestal Rockers?
 
The first swirl heads were the "X" and "J" heads. that's why they are so great. Larry Shepard wrote about how they accidentally stumbled on it while they were flow testing. The modern swirl heads were a direct evolved design from the early heads. If you can get or have one of the earlier MP engine manuals, that's where it's included. I agree that the magnum heads suck big hairy sweaty dirty balls. They don't flow worth crap without port work, the rocker bolts cannot take a lot of cam and valve spring pressure without snappin off. I know people run them, but I promise you, you can take an old X or J and run around the magnums all day long. Chrysler took a step back in time with the magnums as far as I'm concerned. Loosin the shaft mounted rockers was stupid. those are just strong as all hell even in stock form.
 
70aarcuda said:
and do you want to run 10.99 or 10.01?
Click to expand...

That's the key. Decide where you want it to run. the low side would require more $$$, likely lots more because a stock block is at the limit there.

The RHS LA-x head Brian sells can easily get you in the 10's with a smart stroker build. The car could use a diet and that makes it easier.

ET is chassis so it needs to be up to the task.
 
StrokerScamp said:
The first swirl heads were the "X" and "J" heads. that's why they are so great. Larry Shepard wrote about how they accidentally stumbled on it while they were flow testing. The modern swirl heads were a direct evolved design from the early heads. If you can get or have one of the earlier MP engine manuals, that's where it's included. I agree that the magnum heads suck big hairy sweaty dirty balls. They don't flow worth crap without port work, the rocker bolts cannot take a lot of cam and valve spring pressure without snappin off. I know people run them, but I promise you, you can take an old X or J and run around the magnums all day long. Chrysler took a step back in time with the magnums as far as I'm concerned. Loosin the shaft mounted rockers was stupid. those are just strong as all hell even in stock form.
Click to expand...

yep, theres swirl happening in those ld heads, people think it's just the mag/later stuff where yes the focus is more on swirl but less on flow and potential=mag head are done beyond 250cfm, even hughes engines will tell you that.
chrysler wanted to save money=mag'ems/cracknums or whatever you wanna call them.lol

wet flowing heads is where you'll find flow distribution characteristics , then the hassle of getting it spread out, and possibly losing flow in the process.

I've got 190's by .300 -240's cfm by .400 lift -270's by .500- and 280's by .530

Heck as long as I have hands to port...I'll run the old stuff or some rhs heads

hell...you can get close to or about [email protected] with 675 318 heads, hughes even advertises it....keep in mind inflated numbers or happy benches..but hell even 10 less than that is impressive.
 
crackedback said:
That's the key. Decide where you want it to run. the low side would require more $$$, likely lots more because a stock block is at the limit there.

The RHS LA-x head Brian sells can easily get you in the 10's with a smart stroker build. The car could use a diet and that makes it easier.

ET is chassis so it needs to be up to the task.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
Thanks for all the input. It is definetly helping me out with what I plan on doing. I don't really want to put the car on a diet with fiberglass stuff but maybe I can lose 20-30 lbs to help out the car weights. I have already taken out the heater/AC box out and went with manial steering. I am going to take out the 9" ford rearend with disc brakes and put my 8 3/4 back in it. that would lighten it up some and give it back a little HP gain. It would probably be more realistic if I was to go for mid to upper 10's for a street car. Is there any year blocks that are stronger in casting then others. Early vs. late.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top