Suggestions for new design Aluminum Mopar SB clean slate (kind of) cylinder heads

-
rumblefish360 said:
Pittsburghtacer has always ridiculed my W5 & W2 bashing low lift flows against his stuff and other heads.

I have often called him out on this and challenged him to do better but he has always said “No Thanks” to task. I asked him if he ever has ported a set of W2 or W5 heads and he said no.
I also said to him I have a bare set if you feel like porting them to do better, then I’ll allow you to have at them, no worries.

IMO, if you don’t know how the head is, what’s the point of bashing other people’s work?

If anybody has any issue with the numbers or what can be done to the W2 or W5 head, please consult the head porters that have done the work. They would be;

W5 head - Brett Miller

W2 head - Charlie Servidio - Whom never ported a W2 or any W series head before and he found 323 on his bench.

I’m not going to discuss this W2 & W5 stuff anymore since I feel it has been beat to death in my head and I am OK with what it is.
Also, many people on here, most not even head porters with the majority admitting they never ported a head before like to throw in there two cents and it hairs and run the mouth at things I can not talk about since it’s a lack of knowledge on my behalf even though I did get an education on it, I find (and have found while also being agreed with) that bench racing flow benches is not a good way to compare things even though there is splitting hairs on that.

Again, more people here have something to say about flow bench testing and do not own one nor have they ever operated one and can not explain what is what and why is why and the variances that occurs and occurred.

I’m not discussing my W series heads anymore.

If you think they suck, then OK they suck.

OK, off the soap box. I’m done.
Click to expand...


I’m hip. Guys live and die by CFM but the W2 will out horsepower ANY conventional head. Period.

The W5 is better than the W2. I also no longer discuss flow numbers on much of anything because guys who only port one type of head never see what other heads do.

And then they never dyno anything. It’s frustrating for sure.

If Chrysler guys would stop buying OE based cylinder heads maybe we’d get some more offset rocker heads.

Guys snivel because they have to buy a half set of rockers. And headers. And a manifold.

It just makes no sense to me.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
I’m hip. Guys live and die by CFM but the W2 will out horsepower ANY conventional head. Period.

The W5 is better than the W2. I also no longer discuss flow numbers on much of anything because guys who only port one type of head never see what other heads do.

And then they never dyno anything. It’s frustrating for sure.

If Chrysler guys would stop buying OE based cylinder heads maybe we’d get some more offset rocker heads.

Guys snivel because they have to buy a half set of rockers. And headers. And a manifold.

It just makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
Now we have Bloomer porting a speedmaster/steven sun aluminum china head, with conventional ports, no offset rockers, and seemingly making W2 power. I haven't had a set in my hands or on my bench, but I'd be skeptical.
 
rumblefish360 said:
Pittsburghtacer has always ridiculed my W5 & W2 bashing low lift flows against his stuff and other heads.

I have often called him out on this and challenged him to do better but he has always said “No Thanks” to task. I asked him if he ever has ported a set of W2 or W5 heads and he said no.
I also said to him I have a bare set if you feel like porting them to do better, then I’ll allow you to have at them, no worries.

IMO, if you don’t know how the head is, what’s the point of bashing other people’s work?

If anybody has any issue with the numbers or what can be done to the W2 or W5 head, please consult the head porters that have done the work. They would be;

W5 head - Brett Miller

W2 head - Charlie Servidio - Whom never ported a W2 or any W series head before and he found 323 on his bench.

I’m not going to discuss this W2 & W5 stuff anymore since I feel it has been beat to death in my head and I am OK with what it is.
Also, many people on here, most not even head porters with the majority admitting they never ported a head before like to throw in there two cents and it hairs and run the mouth at things I can not talk about since it’s a lack of knowledge on my behalf even though I did get an education on it, I find (and have found while also being agreed with) that bench racing flow benches is not a good way to compare things even though there is splitting hairs on that.

Again, more people here have something to say about flow bench testing and do not own one nor have they ever operated one and can not explain what is what and why is why and the variances that occurs and occurred.

I’m not discussing my W series heads anymore.

If you think they suck, then OK they suck.

OK, off the soap box. I’m done.
Click to expand...
He said the same thing about my flow numbers also, but I didn't pay it any attention. The set of W2s I did ran 6.80s at 101 mph in the 8th, on a pump gas, stock stroke 340, in a full street duster, so i figured they did just fine. They were mostly just mildly bowl ported, very little actual port work, and a real good valve job. YOUR W2s on my bench were about 10 cfm better at peak if i recall
 
I’m pretty sure that the number one priority for the new BP head will be………how well it fills the needs BP has for it.
Everything else is secondary.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
I’m hip. Guys live and die by CFM but the W2 will out horsepower ANY conventional head. Period.
Click to expand...
I think the 2 hp per cfm rule of thumb exist because with a decent build anyone should be able to squeeze 2 hp per cfm out of practically any head but some heads will be able to make 2-2.5 hp per cfm with similar build. So a cfm numbers gives a ballpark minimum of ability (aka 2hp:cfm) but shape & size etc.. ultimately decides on max/actual potential.
 
Last edited:
NC Engine Builder said:
He said the same thing about my flow numbers also, but I didn't pay it any attention. The set of W2s I did ran 6.80s at 101 mph in the 8th, on a pump gas, stock stroke 340, in a full street duster, so i figured they did just fine. They were mostly just mildly bowl ported, very little actual port work, and a real good valve job. YOUR W2s on my bench were about 10 cfm better at peak if i recall
Click to expand...

The W2’s was got from you? Charlie and I don’t remember flow test numbers in tjose. We went through a lot of heads. They were really good flowing for sure, but the numbers, I don’t remember. The new bare W2’s we did a before and after on them for some of his YouTube channel. It was quite good. They generated a bunch of interest from everyone.

Being that Charlie is a Chevy guy, his audience is as well. Mostly anyway. That’s what he mostly started the channel with. He got a great boost with the Mission Impossible heads. Recently he was sent some old Ford heads in the raw form a guy that has an old actual Shelby Cobra he is reviving. It has this massive spark plug hole. Huge! I did t know he had it until we hung out last weekend to just bullshit and drink coffee.

Anyway, Charlie is a good fella.
Looking forward to getting the 352 running shortly as it sits on the stand while I take care of truly important stuff that always befalls n my path first.

You know the adage, if it ain’t one thing, it’s another!
 
NC Engine Builder said:
Now we have Bloomer porting a speedmaster/steven sun aluminum china head, with conventional ports, no offset rockers, and seemingly making W2 power. I haven't had a set in my hands or on my bench, but I'd be skeptical.
Click to expand...

What’s there to be sceptical about. Guys have been to the track and laid down numbers.
I say this is all seriousiness, having had a very healthy W5 car, 13 to 1, sizeable roller, dominator, etc, etc, than when I had it ran 135 mph at 3350. This on bias tires and super stock springs.
Now I am seeing guys run that mph at the weight on pump gas with smaller rollers with these non offset heads
I think these heads are already as good as W2 heads all day, and in the conversation with W5 heads.
Having run both heads, I think my opinion is very valid.
 
Any new head that doesn't utilize an offset intake rocker is no improvement over any other Edelbrock style head.

If you want an increase in CFM you have to change the basic architecture.

Tom
 
PROSTOCKTOM said:
Any new head that doesn't utilize an offset intake rocker is no improvement over any other Edelbrock style head.

If you want an increase in CFM you have to change the basic architecture.

Tom
Click to expand...

Not remotely true.
The Bloomer head looks a good 50 horsepower( or more) better than anything else out there and has a 200cc intake port.
Guys running 9’s in non cut up street cars with them on pump gas.
 
B3422w5 said:
Not remotely true.
The Bloomer head looks a good 50 horsepower( or more) better than anything else out there and has a 200cc intake port.
Guys running 9’s in non cut up street cars with them on pump gas.
Click to expand...


That’s not what he’s saying. He’s correct. You can’t do any more than what you are getting out of castings who’s architecture was set in stone in the very early 1960’s.

That **** is obsolete. A B1 is a 1980’s design. It’s 40 years old.

It’s unreal how ******* stone headed and *** backwards Chrysler people can be.

Cheap assed, stubborn, stuck in the distant past. Unreal.

If I was trying to make competitive power today with a small block I’d be stuck with the LS.

Why? Because Chrysler stuck with a platform that’s a slight improvement over a 1950’s design.

Or I’d use a BBC. Not a BBM with its retarded skirted block and its backwards front mounted oil pump.

It gets damn old hearing guys defend the junk **** they run because…I have no idea why this garbage gets defended.

I’m not bashing the Bloomers for what they are doing because I know they are smart enough to know even IF they did the work to use an offset rocker they’d be lucky to sell three sets of heads

Unreal.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s correct. You can’t do any more than what you are getting out of castings who’s architecture was set in stone in the very early 1960’s.

That **** is obsolete. A B1 is a 1980’s design. It’s 40 years old.

It’s unreal how ******* stone headed and *** backwards Chrysler people can be.

Cheap assed, stubborn, stuck in the distant past. Unreal.

If I was trying to make competitive power today with a small block I’d be stuck with the LS.

Why? Because Chrysler stuck with a platform that’s a slight improvement over a 1950’s design.

Or I’d use a BBC. Not a BBM with its retarded skirted block and its backwards front mounted oil pump.

It gets damn old hearing guys defend the junk **** they run because…I have no idea why this garbage gets defended.

I’m not bashing the Bloomers for what they are doing because I know they are smart enough to know even IF they did the work to use an offset rocker they’d be lucky to sell three sets of heads

Unreal.
Click to expand...

That is all true. But there is no demand for other alternatives.
Mopar LA stuff is a limited hangout, and many that have that stuff are uniquely to Mopar..cheap.
That said, not many( I have seen) 9 sec n/a pump gas Chevy/ Ford small block cars driving around all over.
Considering there are no aftermarket blocks( except Ritter ) around, and they haven’t made LA stuff in 20 odd years..it’s about as good as it should be.
 
I don’t know much about any of this stuff but I’m gonna say it out loud anyways. What if you raised (taller) the head with taller runners and use stock rocker location and make new intakes
 
davescuda said:
I don’t know much about any of this stuff but I’m gonna say it out loud anyways. What if you raised (taller) the head with taller runners and use stock rocker location and make new intakes
Click to expand...


It would be an improvement. Of course that’s exactly what a W5 head is except it uses an offset rocker.

Chrysler didn’t use an offset rocker for no reason.
 
Cuda416 said:
it's not 3d printing, but damn impressive. Do what this guy does, lost foam casting. Check out his more current efforts for some really impressive stuff.

Lost foam casting.... WOW....
Click to expand...

Here's another guy doing some impressive works with cheap tech:


For custom intakes and heads, I'd be looking at v-process. Much cheaper than printing. Some shops that do it are willing to run customer provided patterns. No super expensive tooling and finishes close to permanent mold quality.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
It would be an improvement. Of course that’s exactly what a W5 head is except it uses an offset rocker.

Chrysler didn’t use an offset rocker for no reason.
Click to expand...
They should’ve went an inch taller like the LS heads
 
Last edited:
If you really want to go fast today LS motors are the way to go. Put a damn tubro on them and make an easy 2000 h.p. That's hard to beat and the big Block Chevy. has heads and blocks galore. If I was starting from scratch that would be the way I'd go. I love my Mopars but these things are just facts.
 
Newbomb Turk said:
It would be an improvement. Of course that’s exactly what a W5 head is except it uses an offset rocker.

Chrysler didn’t use an offset rocker for no reason.
Click to expand...
I agree, if you don't have an offset rockers you can have a really good Edelbrock rpm and that's it, with an offset rocker the cross section can be opened up to feed whatever you want.
That's a fact.
Chrysler cylinder heads are always running way to small for the cubic inch, for drivability reasons of course from the factory.
The only **** In my opinion which is good from the factory is, max wedge 413-426, 426 hemi, and a X head on a 340 & that's just barely. smaller cubes and big ports.
Even though gm can suck it....they put good cylinder heads out there for stuff that's kinda size matched, the ls6 is got a nice big port, lt5 nice big raised runner ports. If I wasn't such a hater & broke that lt5 would be well deserving of a tunnel ram and 2 dominators.
Chrysler sucked at changing on the fly, ( my opinion... probably agreeable though)
 
This seems the easiest way

FDF416ED-FC40-42EB-90FB-9A054E53188F.jpeg
 
How about this. Seeing it's aluminum weld up on the side of the ports to make them larger and just use the 8 offset rockers. I hope maybe I can get a set for free for my idea!
 
LO23M8B said:
How about this. Seeing it's aluminum weld up on the side of the ports to make them larger and just use the 8 offset rockers. I hope maybe I can get a set for free for my idea!
Click to expand...
Doesn’t the angle come in the play
 
Newbomb Turk said:
That’s not what he’s saying. He’s correct. You can’t do any more than what you are getting out of castings who’s architecture was set in stone in the very early 1960’s.

That **** is obsolete. A B1 is a 1980’s design. It’s 40 years old.

It’s unreal how ******* stone headed and *** backwards Chrysler people can be.

Cheap assed, stubborn, stuck in the distant past. Unreal.

If I was trying to make competitive power today with a small block I’d be stuck with the LS.

Why? Because Chrysler stuck with a platform that’s a slight improvement over a 1950’s design.

Or I’d use a BBC. Not a BBM with its retarded skirted block and its backwards front mounted oil pump.

It gets damn old hearing guys defend the junk **** they run because…I have no idea why this garbage gets defended.

I’m not bashing the Bloomers for what they are doing because I know they are smart enough to know even IF they did the work to use an offset rocker they’d be lucky to sell three sets of heads

Unreal.
Click to expand...
Wait isn't an LS skirted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top