I only saw pictures and read the article from Super Rod. I want to know HOW much better these are going to be over stock or even some other popular heads, i.e. AFR, Trick Flow, Edelbrock, ect. ect. If anyone has info this is the place to put it!

Interesting. I'm sure you would need pistons to match those heads, but those could be nice, if they are affordable.

I would suspect that they would flow very well. I doubt they would be as good as the 4 valve/semi-hemi Arao Engineering heads with the spark plug located in the center of the head like a Hemi.

The valve clearance issue is a very good point as well as "valve train geometry" would be critical.

But for all the cost of these "exotic heads", why not just look at 18* heads?

These aren't listed on the Barry Grant website and aren't even mentioned in the News section. Are you sure they are from Barry Grant?

3 valve heads? That's weak sauce. How about 4 valve heads. These are from Arao Engineering and are for SBC.
http://araoengineering.com/

Oops, forgot pic...

they are in the pictures from SEMA 2004

I want information on these heads though. 4 valve heads I already know about and don't really want to spend that much on them, plus if something went wrong I bet it would cost an arm and a leg. GM already used 4 valves per cylinder on the LT5 ZR-1's and from what I have gathered you can make lots of power, but parts is the issue again.

I can't see a 3 valve head being significantly cheaper than a 4 valve head.

It sounds like you are implying that you can run LT5 heads on a regular old chevy small block. Yes GM did use 4 valve heads, but they are completely different than SBC heads. The LT5 was in a catagory all its own, and nothing is interchanable with it.

If you weren't implying that, I am sorry for telling you what you already know.

I was just using them as an example of 32 valve heads. Im so terribly sorry
I am just trying to gather some information on 3 valve heads

Looks like the all of the valves are shrouded badly..plus the spark plug is in the same position!? Like there`s a wedge camber there still but I would be interested to see some dyno numbers

umm.. question.. how are you going to open and close 8 extra valves without the extra lobe on the camshaft?

how can these be used on a standard SBC?? i dont see how its done.

or is 1 rodd controlling 2 lifters?

This will explain most of your questions it was a link on his site that is in adobe acrobat format.

And seriously, Barry Grant is a big name.
How can you think for one second that he didn't try these out on an engine on a stand. From the little reading I did already I know that two of the intake valves are controlled by one rocker arm. I didn't see this link before, but am sharing the information with you because I can.

The thing that I notice, is the lack of a signifcantly larger exaust valve. I would be interested in the sizes of the valves. Having all the valve area on the intake side is great, but if the burnt gasses can't get anywhere, it doesn't do you any good.

Using 4-valve heads with pushrods, IMO is not the way to go. Now I could see DOHC with 4 valves like that. Just seems kinda ineffecient. Am I wrong? Cause I don't know

Why not Overhead Cams? Russ Arao (the 4-valve guy) explains:

Next in the engineering decision making process was the type of valve train to use. Of course, at first we strongly considered a dual overhead cam design. Nevertheless, after more analysis, the overhead cams only have valve control advantages after 10,000 RPM. Not where V-8’s like to run, and not where 99.9% of our customers are going to run theirs. This coupled with the fact that after all the front of motor cam drives are manufactured and installed, and four special one off camshafts manufactured, with four different cams for every different profile that the customer would want. We would have a $25,000.00 dual overhead cam 4 valves per cylinder conversion on our hands. We did not think we would sell too many of these. Therefore, the final decision was to manufacture and market a four valve per cylinder bolt on head using all existing camshafts, lifters, intake manifolds, pistons, and aftermarket over the counter big tube headers. Creating a very powerful, marketable item, that fills the void of normally aspirated performance.

We are still in the developmental stages on our 3-Valve cylinder heads. Once we get closer to release we’ll have more specific information available about them. We are shooting for a target price of around $3000 retail for the complete setup ready to bolt on, heads, valves, valve springs, rocker arms, valve covers, essentially everything required to bolt them onto a standard Gen 1 SBC. This is less than ½ the price of a 4 valve cylinder head setup. These heads are designed for Street/Strip type engines; we are not going after the higher end race engines, which is why they do not need a larger exhaust port.

The idea behind them is that two smaller intake valves are lighter so the engine will accelerate quicker. Also with two valves, give a curtain area that is almost 40% greater than a larger single valve which will increase your flow. The two intake valves are operated off of one rocker arm with a tie bar.

These heads are designed to be able to bolt directly onto a standard Gen 1 SBC. If you’re running the flat top pistons with 4 eye brows and a cam with less than .500” lift there should not be the need to modify the pistons.

I hope they make a matching intake manifold for it. Otherwise there'll still be a bottleneck at the port...

Sorry we didn't mention it before. The 3-Valve head we are working on is designed to work with standard 23 degree intake manifolds, and exhaust headers.

I am going to respectfully disagree with this statement. What good is all of the intake flow, without the exaust flow? Street/Strip/Full race or even grocery getter, if the air/fuel goes in, the exaust has to go out. So what if you can muster 400cfm per runner on the intake, if you only get 60cfm on the exaust. Maybe when real flow numbers come out, I will be more impressed. But, right now, this seems like nothing more than marketing to me.

Yeah, those do look like crappy heads, the design of the chamber looks pretty ****ty and it does shroud the exhaust valves, a lot. If BG sells a single one it'll be to idiots, you can make more power more efficently using a high performance 2 valve head. All I see is a bad quench area, no swirl area, and a huge area for the spark to travel from due to bad spark plug location. If they were to manufacture their own valve covers and relocate the spark plugs and use a semi-hemi design it would be a lot better. All I'm seeing is a product with a lack of engineering.

Before we start bashing a head that has yet to prove itself,

Ford is using a 3 valve system(yes i know i said the dreaded "F" word) but it seems their 3 valve heads have produced good results.


does anyone happen to have a picture to post showing their design?

the big reason the new mustang engine is producing the power it has, Ford credits that to the new 3 valve head design..

soooo.. that being said, lets wait till BG shows some figures on a car/truck/race car ect before we start the bashing and/or commending.. its only fair..


"people often fear what they do not comprehend"

You know nothing about these heads, probably less than I do! Before you call the I think they deserve time to prove themselves. The valve cover is uneeded and I doubt that Barry Grant lacks the originality to rip off the HEMI design (mainly because it is probably patented) I have talked with the rep and am working on possibly doing a dyno on a stock system, but it is all really up to them. Fingers crossed

I didn't even know that ford was using this style of head until you mentioned it Killjoy. The new mustang GT was able to pull of a few 13.6-13.8 e/t's stock! So I think it is safe to assume that these have potential! Watch out!

Here is a pic of the new ford heads
and here is the website i found them from, including more info ford article

how about a GM factory 3 valve head? Here's the link to the article about this new research project from GM powertrain.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles...GM/index3.html

I want some heads that will work on my car though. If they have these available for my car, hey i am all for it, but it looks like the xV8 is a way of the new, hence the X. it describes itself, it used to be a v8 but it still is, just smaller cubes.

Ford did the same thing. With the Mustang I was just using it as an example. The ongoing battle of and Ford will never die! The main problem I see is that they won't be compatible unless you plan on getting to know some of the designers or have WAY TOO much time on your hand. Barry Grant can do this because he has money I would imagine. He has Demon carb's, and a few other products. If I could get a hold of the tech's who worked on that odd's are they can't tell anyone the info on the product because of a contract or some conspiracy crap. Thats why aftermarket products are better, i.e. AFR vs. Vortech heads.

??? You are babbling, get ahold of yourself.

The Ford 3 valve are not Ford 3 valve:-) The bought the rights to Fueling head designs as he was the first using a 3 valve head. his test mule was a BB TBI chevy truck...

Dig up stuff on fueling and old issues of Pre GM , high Tech Performance...

later
Jeremy

damn. you guys need to wake up and learn about what you dont know before you open your mouths.

you sound like a bunch of morons..



id bet my car that if Hot Rod magazine didnt toss around phrases like quench and swirl, that you wouldnt even know what the hell they are. hell, you still dont.

and patented hemi?
LMAO

the "hemi" chamber you sooo love is in almost every Honda, Toyota and other import 4banger inline motor. but of course, the new "hemi" motor doesnt have it. lol.

heh, im going to stop ranting.. its not like it matters anyway, no one here even has the cash to buy the head, nevermind testing them..

well now i wouldnt say that...

see the plug placement on that Ford head?? that is the ideal spot, right in the middle.


you people that bash a 3 valve head need to realize or research a little better on what you are bashing.


that computer shot of the GM 3 valve is awesome.. crazy twin cam design. i wouldnt expect to see that in a camaro or anything, since the LS2/LS7 is what it might get.. i would think that they would start out with the 3 valve system in the trucks like Ford did in the F150.. Ford then gave that motor to the Mustang(of course its tweeked a bit from the truck engine)

how much does that 4valve setup cost.....

FWIW: The new Ford 3 valve heads have cams with 3 lobes per cylinder. Say it today at the Detroit Auto show.

I like the idea of a special rocker arm which activates two valves.

From what I've heard, about $4000. So start saving your rubles.

But it comes with valve covers!

First of all, I think everyone who "knows" these heads are already junk should shut up and see what kind of numbers they put out first before talking about something you don't have any first hand knowledge about. I would imagine that BG wouldn't be spending thousands of dollars making a 3 valve head that didn't have some sort of performance gain, i mean they aren't edelbrock, hehe.

If there is a good power gain over a 2 valve head and the price is more than a set of stock vortec heads, well I guess some people won't be able to afford them. You get what you pay for, and I doubt that BG is going to let a set of these heads go for 700 bucks. It's like everything else, you have to pay to play. There's a reason not everyone has AFR heads, they are expensive, overrated to an extent, but do perform well. So stop whinning about how the new performance head doesn't fit into your 43.00 dollar build up.

:hail: :yourock: :werd:

Guys,

There are some good points made here, and some well…. not so good points. Swirl, and quench area are open to opinion. Much of which has changed vastly in the last few years with newer wet flow technology. I’m not going to get into a debate over it, because there is not a right or wrong answer, it’s a matter of what is going to work on the application. We’re working with some of the best cylinder head people in the country, and we value their opinion, and we’ll see how everything performs. Flow numbers are great, but they are not an end all be all number. They were designed as a way of comparing cylinder heads on a bench. Without the rest of the data, they are worthless. The do not give you air velocity numbers, as well as other factors that are important. A 23 degree cylinder head can make big HP utilizing larger intake valves, and standard 1.600” exhaust, so for the type of applications we’re looking at we do not feel the 1.600” valve is going to limit us. We’re not building a Race head. We’re trying to increase the low lift flow, and acceleration of the engine due to change in valve mass. Once we get closer to release to the public we’ll have the data available. The 4-Valve heads go for about $6000 according to their website.

Thanks again,

Just a question...

How do you expect to increase engine acceleration by reducing valve mass, when, infact you know still have one camshaft, and one pushrod driving two rocker arms and two valves? You'll actually be forced to move more mass at the same rate.

Since you're dealing with less seat pressure, and you're using the same action there is less load in the system. According to all of the computer generated simulations, and spintron work there is less resistance. This is where you get the quicker acceleration from.

Also by using two smaller intake valves you increase the RPM that valve float occurs at with the same seat pressure. So you can reduce seat pressure for the same RPM that valve float occurs at. This all results in less stress on the valve train as well.

You guys that are stuck with the two valve per cylinder pushrod mentality would probably freak if you saw a 5 valve Yamaha head.

Give them some time, multi-valve technology has already proven itself superior to two valve.

Tech, thanks for your input and answers. I greatly appreciate it.

The one concern I have is the limit of .500" lift before requiring a custom piston. While this is okay for more most hydraulic flat tappet cams, most of the factory style hydraulic roller cams quickly exceed begin .500" lift once even with fairly modest .050" duration levels.

Any chance of upping the limit to say .550" lift? This would accomodate most of the factory style hydraulic roller cams from the cam manufacturers. Also, with a hydraulic roller cam, wouldn't you still need a bit more spring pressure than if you used a flat tappet cam? Does the spring pressure of the two 100lb intake springs equal the 200 lb spring pressure of a single spring at the lifter and thus reduce tendency to valve float?

Also, what port sizes are you considering both on the intake and exhaust?

PS: If these heads can out perform 18* heads, not have any valve train geometry issues, use all standard Chevy intakes/exhausts headers, offer combustion chambers size of 60-74cc and sell for $3,000 (or less) - you definitely got my interest.

whats an aporxamite price range for the 3 valve heads some ball park figure +- $800 also the arao heads should be dropping in price due to new castings and a awsome business deal if things go as planned. what made you guys do a SBC design opposed to a LS1 design?

I could have not said more.

I really think that this technology will catch on.


Lincoln's and Cadillacs also use 32 valve heads. I have never heard of the 5 valve's yet though, interesting.

I totally agree with Glenn on this one. If they match up to headers, have the right cc's, and sell for that. People will save to get these heads, especially if the performance gains are nice you will have no problems at all!

Guys,

Again thanks for all of the feedback. Hopefully I can answer most of your questions. The actually lift rate may change once we get to the production level. The other thing is that the increased lift may not be necessary at that point, based upon how they perform. Using the example of two springs that open at 100 lbs vs. one that opens at 200 lbs. The opening rate doesn’t multiple for the two springs, even though you’re dealing with two, it is still only 100 lbs of pressure to open them up. With the losses going through the valve train it may be slightly higher depending upon the fulcrum being used, but still substantially higher than the single spring with 200 lbs of seat pressure. They should be able to outperform an 18-degree head in their intended application. So it’s not really a fair comparison. Our target goal is to be about $3000 complete ready to bolt on with rockers, springs, valve covers, everything required to bolt them onto an existing short block. The main reason to do a Gen 1 SBC vs. the LS1 based engines is simple supply and demand. The Gen 1 engine was produced for about 40 years, combine that with the number of aftermarket blocks that are available to work with the platform, and it’s a no brain’r. The other thing is getting into an LS based engine no brings emissions, and other factors in that we did not want to get involved with at this point. Lastly since GM is working on their 3 Valve head why start out where you would have competition.

Do these heads use a link bar on the intake springs with a stock style roller rocker or will they require a dual tip rocker arm like the GM design pictured above? It would be nice to have a pic. of the top half.

I don't think the "small" exhaust valve is going to be a problem with all that fresh air/fuel going into the mix. These 3valve heads would seem more like the ultimate street/strip head vs. an 18* "race" setup. Seems like these heads would move the power curve down in the rpm range. Like making 500lbft @ 2000rpm vs. 500lbft. @3500rpm I'm guessing these heads would really shine on a 383. I doubt the exhaust flow is going to be a problem at higher rpms because you wont' need to spin the engine to make power. I can kinda see how these heads wouldn't fit into a 454 sbc crate motor build which already makes insane amounts of low end torque, this is where you'd want to install a larger exhaust valve and experiment with a higher lift cam.

With those increased low lift intake #'s you wouldn't need a radical cam to make a completely tame, streetable 500hp 383. I'm guessing these heads would work well with several off-the-shelf dual pattern cams bias towards the exhaust side.

VW has 5 valve heads, as well as Ferrari. I'm sure others have them too, 5 valve cylinder heads are out there.

5 valves and 12 cylinders... good lord..

every seen a Formula F1 Farrari Head?? DAMN!!!:hail:

Yes, we're using a tie bar between the two intake valves that is actuated by a standard style roller rocker.

i have a dyno and would be really interested in seing how these head perform on a 427 sbc. contact me via email if your interested in some fiarly striaght forward testing and analysis.