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

-
RustyRatRod said:
Especially Mopar guys.
Click to expand...


I gotta disagree. We picked the most expensive engine to race if you can’t do the work yourself. My Chevy friends are the cheap of the cheap. Junkyard engines and if you want to go a little faster throw an eBay turbo on them. I swear my Chevy friends reuse condoms.
 
As an owner of a '68 A-body, I would like to use the short water pump and not the longer '70+ pump for more clearance for radiators and fans. 3/4" is a lot for the A-Body engine compartment.
 
pittsburghracer said:
I gotta disagree. We picked the most expensive engine to race if you can’t do the work yourself. My Chevy friends are the cheap of the cheap. Junkyard engines and if you want to go a little faster throw an eBay turbo on them. I swear my Chevy friends reuse condoms.
Click to expand...
:rofl:
 
pittsburghracer said:
I gotta disagree. We picked the most expensive engine to race if you can’t do the work yourself. My Chevy friends are the cheap of the cheap. Junkyard engines and if you want to go a little faster throw an eBay turbo on them. I swear my Chevy friends reuse condoms.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a story I share sometimes. When I was working at O'Reilly, one of the local Chevy guys came in and asked my opinion on torque converters. I said "Jerry, the converter is the single most important piece of an automatic equipped car, so don't skimp on it". He immediately said "Summit has one for 109 bucks". Realizing I would never get anywhere, I said "yeah, get that one".
 
Johnny Mac said:
All,

Time for our mopar sb lineup to get some love. I'd like to ask the masses to chime in with suggestions / observations for a BluePrint Engines Mopar SB cylinder head. (with a catch of course)

Here are some facts that are Non negotiable. Some of you won't love the "Limitations" , your opinions are welcome, but these are things I CANNOT change, based on block availability.

1. These will use pushrod oiling, and have stud mounted rockers. LA blocks in the world for a company of our Size are too sparse to use deck oiling or shaft rockers. Not interested in the cost of shaft rockers, or trying to oil shaft rockers through the pushrods. Just is what it is.
2. I hope to utilize the LA intake manifold bolt pattern opposed to magnum. Opens up aftermarket intake availability. I think the intake bolts (LA vs magnum) occupy the same realestate, so there won't be enough meat to machine both at the same time. has to be 1 or the other. correct me if i'm wrong.
3. Keeping in mind we're an engine manufacture first, not a head company....the idea is to use these on our engines first....and offer them to the aftermarket as capacity allows.
4. Must be magnum head -ish based. I cannot get into weird W2 ports, completely moving the pushrod holes, etc. These are primary going in 500HP and down cars, so they must fit without weird custom headers, use avail intakes, etc.

outside of the above, I would love to hear things you dislike about the other few heads on the market, or would change. EX: do the magnum edelbrocks have missing bolt bosses vs an LA? are magnum based heads fatter somewhere an LA isn't, so they make it hard to bolt on OE accessories. (may be completely false, just throwing out examples)

Should be a nice little 290 ish CFM street/strip head with a 2.08 intake valve that does everything we need it to do, w/o getting too exotic.

thanks everyone in advance for the input.
Click to expand...
IMHO, just looking at the GM Gen 3/4 engine head and port designs for inspiration is a good place to start. Granted keeping the stock port face openings and pushrod locations does limit design some. The General spent a lot of development time on those first engines and came up with a winner.
The Gen 3 Hemi design seems good for flow, but how much could be applied to an LA/Magnum cylinder head I do not know.
Look to David Vizard Powertec 10 Youtube videos on porting or his How to Port and Flowtest Cylinder Heads book. The port should aim to the cylinder wall side and the bowls should exhibit a bias from that cylinder wall side angling across the valve stem toward the cylinder center. This is the bowl area, and will generate swirl. A look at DV's 289 Ford porting shows angling the quench to aid flow out the exhaust valve. Yes, I know, Fordy stuff. But physics does not know the nameplate on the hood.
Reduce valve angle to get a smaller combustion chamber for fast burn. Compression is easily controlled with a piston dish that matches the outline of the head combustion chamber. This will lead to good torque and fuel efficiency. Less timing advance will be required. Another benefit is that at a later date and for the aftermarket, more torque and power can be added by "all the usual suspects."
An offshoot of this could be heads for the 3.9L V6, which is essentially a 5.2L with a cylinder removed from each side. This would be a negligible design expense to accomplish.
 
Professor Fate said:
While the LA and Magnum intake bolts are similarly located, the angles are substantially different and can co-exist in the same head. For example, many of us have redrilled (or had the shop redrill) Magnum heads with the LA intake bolt angle, with no issues. It could prove to be a nice selling point for your heads, with a very minimal additional manufacturing cost.
The only drawback, depending on the final design, would be if one set of holes or the other were open to a water jacket. But this could easily be solved by a set of allen screws installed into the unused set of holes with sealer.
Keep the decks thicker than factory Magnums to avoid the cracking issue they had.
JMO, but you could do a lot worse than to use the old (New Zealand) EQ head as a basis for your new offering. Keep the pricepoint reasonable and you'll sell a bunch of them.
Click to expand...
Bolt holes open to coolant is easily remedied at the core design stage to leave metal to seal them.
 
PRH said:
I’m assuming you’ll be setting them up for SBC rockers.
If not, I’d suggest you do.

Make sure the pushrod slots will easily clear the use of 1.6 rocker ratio.

Make the spring installed height at least 1.800”, and 1.900” would be better.

Valve/rocker positioning to fit/accommodate 1.55” springs would be nice, along with making the heads accept that diameter without needing extra machining.
Click to expand...
If the Magnum or LS valves are used with the 5/16" or 8mm stems and spring installed height of 1.8", beehive springs are readily available and valves like the hollow stem LS2 valves are light.
Back to Johnny Mac's original post and conditions, the intent is basically an improved stock replacement good up to 500HP. Porting and other performance parts in the aftermarket would vastly improve that, I expect. Keep the head valve train mass down. There are dual conical springs available now, but not Ebay priced. If using components designed for the General's LS engines, the parts costs come down.
 
Darrin Morgan is the one to watch.
DV is a seller of books and 'no **** Sherlock' type approaches. His channel was stagnate till utg roped him into a 318 build after paying attention to how many little guy channels were getting views from 318 head/engine builds.

It's all calculations by snake oil salemen...same as any network... they steal ideas and profit..meanwhile foolin a ton of people into subscribing and perceivin it as the pinnacle of learning on that topic.
 
Dale Davies said:
If the Magnum or LS valves are used with the 5/16" or 8mm stems and spring installed height of 1.8", beehive springs are readily available and valves like the hollow stem LS2 valves are light.
Back to Johnny Mac's original post and conditions, the intent is basically an improved stock replacement good up to 500HP. Porting and other performance parts in the aftermarket would vastly improve that, I expect. Keep the head valve train mass down. There are dual conical springs available now, but not Ebay priced. If using components designed for the General's LS engines, the parts costs come down.
Click to expand...
Dale Davies do you even know what the length of an ls valve is.
4.87/4.92 ...6 bucks stock or 11.99 starting for stainless, 225-400 a set.
Beehives are 240 bucks. Not very cost effective approach so far.
If you want 1.8 you pay out the *** for ferrea + stems or you sink the valves into the chambers and the diggin begins.
I'll give up a hair in stem diameter for a cheap +.100 11/32 stem vs cost .
Speaking for ootb iron magnums available.. they're already sunk and ledged...so it just gets worse/more chamber shaping.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Darrin Morgan is the one to watch.
DV is a seller of books and 'no **** Sherlock' type approaches. His channel was stagnate till utg roped him into a 318 build after paying attention to how many little guy channels were getting views from 318 head/engine builds.

It's all calculations by snake oil salemen...same as any network... they steal ideas and profit..meanwhile foolin a ton of people into subscribing and perceivin it as the pinnacle of learning on that topic.
Click to expand...
Well I will go with DV's resume' and on the track results. Snake oil salesmen? I will go with DV, your results may vary. Other builders also have good and valid theories and practices. Sometimes we need to look on the other side of the fence for inspiration. Sometimes things work and sometimes they do not. An engine is a ton of compromises which can work together for a desired result or against one another. It is to achieve a suitable balance for your intended use.
 
Dale Davies said:
Well I will go with DV's resume' and on the track results. Snake oil salesmen? I will go with DV, your results may vary. Other builders also have good and valid theories and practices. Sometimes we need to look on the other side of the fence for inspiration. Sometimes things work and sometimes they do not. An engine is a ton of compromises which can work together for a desired result or against one another. It is to achieve a suitable balance for your intended use.
Click to expand...
His resume' and track results? Where can we go to validate his "real world" results? All I could find is something about European 4 cylinders, and a ford pinto. Also his main side kick with all DVs "expert help" just got beat by a 4 door taxicab turd 318 build with junk, by an idiot.
 
MOPAROFFICIAL said:
Dale Davies do you even know what the length of an ls valve is.
4.87/4.92 ...6 bucks stock or 11.99 starting for stainless, 225-400 a set.
Beehives are 240 bucks. Not very cost effective approach so far.
If you want 1.8 you pay out the *** for ferrea + stems or you sink the valves into the chambers and the diggin begins.
I'll give up a hair in stem diameter for a cheap +.100 11/32 stem vs cost .
Speaking for ootb iron magnums available.. they're already sunk and ledged...so it just gets worse/more chamber shaping.
Click to expand...
Going to Johnny Mac's post he lists hard and fast requirements.
1: Stock port locations.
2: Stud mount rockers oiled through the pushrods.
I know valve length and installed heights. I went through this to install the LM7 valves in my 1966 289 heads.
As I mentioned, Magnum valves can be used. Pretty much all the OEM's are using beehive springs these days. My PAC springs were not cheap either. Now when Blue Print Engines orders up valve springs, they will be ordering a few sets more than you or I will ever use giving them a better price point. Now if they are building a bunch of Gen 3 GM engines and the same springs can be used the prices look better.
When designing a new head they can engineer in pretty much any installed height for the springs that work for them. They can specify valve stem lengths and head diameters to fit their needs and on their volumes the costs balance out a bunch.
Maybe Johnny Mac could comment a bit on this, with a vviewpoint from their end and considering input to this point.
 
replicaracer43 said:
His resume' and track results? Where can we go to validate his "real world" results? All I could find is something about European 4 cylinders, and a ford pinto. Also his main side kick with all DVs "expert help" just got beat by a 4 door taxicab turd 318 build with junk, by an idiot.
Click to expand...
Did not look very far or you need to wash the road apples off the eyelids.
 
pittsburghracer said:
I gotta disagree. We picked the most expensive engine to race if you can’t do the work yourself. My Chevy friends are the cheap of the cheap. Junkyard engines and if you want to go a little faster throw an eBay turbo on them. I swear my Chevy friends reuse condoms.
Click to expand...
I must agree with this line of thought! Now do they wash 'em out or turn them inside out?
 
Dale Davies said:
Well I will go with DV's resume' and on the track results. Snake oil salesmen? I will go with DV, your results may vary. Other builders also have good and valid theories and practices. Sometimes we need to look on the other side of the fence for inspiration. Sometimes things work and sometimes they do not. An engine is a ton of compromises which can work together for a desired result or against one another. It is to achieve a suitable balance for your intended use.
Click to expand...
I'm glad you don't take it personal, cause it's not.
Just inserting my 2 cents like you did on what YouTube porters are "inspirational" aka interesting... to me.Eric and Chad are also interesting to watch. Methods and their end results can be very short windowed.
Some of these big names do not have obscure head mastery most of the time..so if that's your deal you'll look elsewhere..but yeah it can still apply. Whatever is is...it has to be of complimenting shape or it can hurt.
 
Last edited:
273 said:
I don't think 290 cfm being a problem, be nice if that was cast numbers and left room to grow built with porters in mind but that's enough cfm for 90+% of people, be nice if port design was geared more to 408 sizes, what's really needed trick flow performance at speedmaster prices anything else is bonus. But trick flow performance with trick prices is a harder sale.
The latest in chamber design would be nice too.

But a bolt on for the magnum blocks without special rockers would be nice, wouldn't mind a set for my 5.9L.
Click to expand...
290 out of the box and then port them should be enough for mmost everyone.
 
pittsburghracer said:
I gotta disagree. We picked the most expensive engine to race if you can’t do the work yourself. My Chevy friends are the cheap of the cheap. Junkyard engines and if you want to go a little faster throw an eBay turbo on them. I swear my Chevy friends reuse condoms.
Click to expand...
Jusaturneminsideout, scheeee
 
Dale Davies said:
Going to Johnny Mac's post he lists hard and fast requirements.
1: Stock port locations.
2: Stud mount rockers oiled through the pushrods.
I know valve length and installed heights. I went through this to install the LM7 valves in my 1966 289 heads.
As I mentioned, Magnum valves can be used. Pretty much all the OEM's are using beehive springs these days. My PAC springs were not cheap either. Now when Blue Print Engines orders up valve springs, they will be ordering a few sets more than you or I will ever use giving them a better price point. Now if they are building a bunch of Gen 3 GM engines and the same springs can be used the prices look better.
When designing a new head they can engineer in pretty much any installed height for the springs that work for them. They can specify valve stem lengths and head diameters to fit their needs and on their volumes the costs balance out a bunch.
Maybe Johnny Mac could comment a bit on this, with a vviewpoint from their end and considering input to this point.
Click to expand...
As long as they aren't chicon price point. Those are all over the place in pressure and known to break.
 
Killer6 said:
Machining complexity + extra specialty parts = $$$, I covered canting the intakes in post#115. Easier with keyed pedestal style rockers, but He wants studs & ball fullcrums, that means custom guide plates. That's more of both which bumps the price up. He's also not designing "World beater" heads, if You get the OP, these are hot street or street/strip target OOTB.
Click to expand...
If they have studs for ball fulcrums, the step up to full rollers is not a big deal, just cost. For BPE the ball studs make finacial sense. Now for performance enthusiasts, we want to choose our rocker style, ratio and manufacturer. Not an issue. For the studs the threads in the head are all 7/16" UNC with a choice of 3/8" or 7/16" for the adjuster nuts. 7/16" are a bit stronger and less prone to flex. When they eventually do start supply of heads to the aftermarket, the stud size should be an option.
I thought about the canted valve idea, but the plan is a factory replacement with upgrades.
 
Dale Davies said:
If they have studs for ball fulcrums, the step up to full rollers is not a big deal, just cost. For BPE the ball studs make finacial sense. Now for performance enthusiasts, we want to choose our rocker style, ratio and manufacturer. Not an issue. For the studs the threads in the head are all 7/16" UNC with a choice of 3/8" or 7/16" for the adjuster nuts. 7/16" are a bit stronger and less prone to flex. When they eventually do start supply of heads to the aftermarket, the stud size should be an option.
I thought about the canted valve idea, but the plan is a factory replacement with upgrades.
Click to expand...

Do not try and justify using junk **** ball stud rockers. It’s stupid. Why go backwards 6 DECADES?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top