Edelbrock Performer Aluminum Heads #6085 For 305? - Third Generation F-Body Message Boards

Aftermarket Product Review Provide questions and answers about aftermarket parts for the Third Generation F-Body.

Edelbrock Performer Aluminum Heads #6085 For 305?

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 05-16-2001, 02:53 AM   #1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Trenton, NJ
Posts: 68
Edelbrock Performer Aluminum Heads #6085 For 305?

Has anyone run these heads on a 305? In the fine print Racesearch.com and Jegs said that you can use these on small bore blocks as long as a cam with less than .450 lift is used. This shouldn't be a problem since I plan to run either a stock or mild cam. The fact that these heads have 2.02/1.60 valves seems like a big plus to me as far as flow. The only thing that confuses me about these heads is the 60cc chamber. My engine was bored .030 but I'm using dished pistons, and I haven't changed the deck height. I know that the formula for compression ratio is:

total cylinder vol+chamber size+gasket vol
chamber size+gasket vol

But when I work out the formula (97 cc cylinder volume, 9 cc gasket volume, 60 cc chamber volume) I get 2 point something or other...what am I doing wrong here? Shouldn't I be getting a number like 8 point something? But then there is the question of the compression ratio itself. The stock ratio of the LB9 is 9.5:1 (I think)-how much performance am I going to lose if it drops to say 8.0:1-or is it not going to drop that much?


Matthew C. Hall
MatthewH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2001, 08:43 AM   #2
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: NortCentral NJ, USA-
Posts: 175
Valves are too big for the small 3.75" bore of the 305. The valves will contact the bore with a cam lift of over .450 (depending on deck height, gasket thickness etc.).

Hybrid Black 5.7L 5 Speed
'95 Competition Yellow Corvette Coupe ZF6
blak92! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2001, 12:19 PM   #3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Trenton, NJ
Posts: 68
That won't be a problem-I'll be using the stock cam...I'm mainly worried about compression ratio.
MatthewH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2001, 12:59 PM   #4
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Jersey Village, Houston, TX
Posts: 1,630
I'm not sure, but maybe I can point you in the right direction. I think NJSPEEDER has these heads on his 305 TBI with the stock cam. If I remember correctly, he said the compression didn't drop all that much from the 58cc to 60cc change. Try emailing him or posting on the TBI board.
soulbounder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2001, 10:29 PM   #5
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: clinton,tn
Posts: 1,686
Where are you getting the 97cc cylinder volume from? If you are ccing the cylinder with the piston at bottom dead center and adding that to the head gasket volume plus the combustion chamber volume, then you need to re cc the cylinder volume with the piston at top dead center and add the gasket and cumbustion chamber volume then devided the larger number by the smaller number and you should have the correct static compression ratio. Am I right or wrong on this one guys?
97cc's seams way to small, maybe 970cc but not 97cc.

steve8586iroc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2001, 12:38 AM   #6
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Trenton, NJ
Posts: 68

You're right-I figured out what I was doing wrong. To convert the cubic inches to cubic centimeters I was multiplying by 2.54.
Instead I should have been multiplying by 16.387 (which is 2.54 cubed) so the equation should go like this:

305 bore (.030 over) = 3.77
305 stroke = 3.48
Constant = 0.7853982
ci's to cc's = 16.387
Chamber Volume = 60 cc
Gasket Volume = 9 cc

14.2129 x 3.48 x .7853982 x 16.387 = 636 cc

636 cc + 60 cc + 9 cc = 705 cc

705 cc
-------- = 10.2:1
69 cc

I think that's it-of course this is assuming the block has been zero decked and the pistons are flat tops. I have to find some way of measuring the dish and deck gap to find the true ratio. You'd think that a physics major would've gotten this right on the first try



MatthewH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2001, 04:35 AM   #7
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Posts: 592
I don't think valves that size are going to be a big plus on a 305. Even if they clear the deck, you will have severe valve shrouding - especially on the exhaust side. In this case, smaller valves would probably increase flow.

If you insist on aluminum heads, find a set that use the standard 1.94/1.5" valves. This will still be an improvement over the standard 305 valve sizes. The additional benefit would be the ability to use a higher lift cam, which should also improve flow.

If you can consider cast-iron heads, the WP 305 Torquer head might be a good option. I believe the valve angles on these heads are rotated to further unshroud the valves(hopefully someone can confirm or correct me on this). Some of the money you save by going to cast-iron could be better spent to get a camshaft that more closely matches the increased compression ratio. A stock(or near stock) lift cam will not do a very good job of filling the cylinders at the compression range you are aiming at.
88IROCs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2001, 12:55 PM   #8
Supreme Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 4,969
88IROCs is right that shrouding will kill the whole purpose of having the large valves. Not only that but it will hurt the velocity of the air flow which will hurt your low end torque. The smaller area that air goes through will increase it's velocity (speed). This will help pull air in faster at lower RPMs.
The 2.02/1.60 valves are great for higher RPMs 'cause the faster piston stroke will increase the airflow speed, and the cylinder will also get more air. But if you plan on mostly street/strip duty then it'll take 2500 to 3K RPMs to get that engine pulling. 1.94/1.50 should be good for a 305, even bored out, especially if you're gonna stick to the stock cam. It's all in the combo of the engine. The stock cam is set up for torque, so putting on high flow heads is like telling a 10 yr. old that he can use a bigger shovel to move more dirt faster. He couldn't handle it!
AJ_92RS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2001, 01:36 PM   #9
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Trenton, NJ
Posts: 68
Thanks guys,

Ok, now I have a good idea of what I want to do as far as heads...The only reason I was going to stick to a stock cam before was because of the recommendation from Edelbrock about the lift restrictions. I guess I'm going to shift my attention back to the Corvette heads, but I'm not even sure about those because of compression issues with my dished pistons...Since this engine is going into a Volvo the big attracting factor for aluminum was weight over the front end. Of course I don't want to have a light car that's a total dog either

I called Jegs because I was originally going to order S/R 305 Torquers, but the parts guy told me that they only came in the pre '86 intake style. Is there a TBI intake made that will bolt to that? I know there are carb manifolds that you can bolt a TBI spacer to, but I'm worried about hood clearance in the Volvo. Of course yet another option is to buy Vortecs and shave them down-then get the GM TBI manifold.

Decisions, Desicions....


MatthewH is offline   Reply With Quote

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Trans am V.S Rx8! TreDeClaw Theoretical and Street Racing 8 02-27-2017 12:58 AM
[WA] Edelbrock 1406 600 CFM carb, Holley AFPR, gauge.. 86IROC112 Engine/Drivetrain/Suspension Parts for Sale 4 08-17-2015 02:00 PM
2500 stall, needs trans cooler? TreDeClaw Transmissions and Drivetrain 15 08-14-2015 06:58 PM
Whistling/screaming noise under load - 350 SBC w/ Edelbrock 1406 theshackle Tech / General Engine 0 08-10-2015 06:25 PM
seriously considering going carbed LT1 midge54 LTX and LSX 12 08-09-2015 08:52 PM

Go Back   Third Generation F-Body Message Boards >

305, 6085, aluminum, cam, centerbolt, chamber, cylinder, edelbrock, edlebeock, head, heads, increasing, performance, performer, review, size

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory

1982 Camaro '82 || 1983 Camaro '83 || 1984 Camaro '84 || 1985 Camaro '85 || 1986 Camaro '86 || 1987 Camaro '87 || 1988 Camaro '88 || 1989 Camaro '89 || 1990 Camaro '90 || 1991 Camaro '91 || 1992 Camaro '92

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM.

All content copyright 1997 - 2014 ThirdGen.org. All rights reserved. No part of this website may be reproduced without the expressed, documented, and written consent of ThirdGen.org's Administrators.
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Your question will be posted in: