Well, I have finished the porting jod on my 416 heads. They took me about 20 hrs totel time. I need u guys to take a look at them and let me know if Imade mistakes or what I did not do. Be nice. now this is my first time every using a carbide set and even looking this close at a set of heads.



Sitting Bull: Here is your chance to look at a students work and see how well u have taught.
U guys looking for info on porting and polishing check out Sitting Bulls and Fbird's Thread. It is a must for first time porters:hail:


Keep in mind when u look that the heads have not been to the machine shop yet for hot tanking, so they are dirty. I have parts washed them but that doesn't touch the carbon. U will see where I have hit the valve seats a couple times I am going to have the seats enlarged for new valves so rest assured they will be redone. I thank u guys in advance for your input:hail:

 

here is another....

 

And another......

 

what about where the intake sits? and the headers?they need to be worked ... ur getting there ... tao

 

lol ... your posting as i reply ... they look great dude ... tao

 

And another....

 

U see i tried to keep the walls as consistant as I could and yet i left them ruff for mixture purposes....

 

Exhast ports were my best. They seemed the eaiest to do. I notice the edge on the left side pic just above the intake vacum control ports. they are a b*ach to get at.

 

How are they looking and help. How are the Valve guides for height and blending?

 

84, how go things?

The only thing that really jumps out is the deshrouding of the valves for larger valves. Did you lay a head gasket down and see just how far you can take the sides to open up for larger valves?

I would do a 3 angle valve job, that will cure the seats.

From the ports you show, things look very consistant.

if this was the first time, youve done a really good job, hats off to you.

 

I did not take a lot of pics of the chanbers because this is my week point. I hit the seats a couple of times and got real weary of hitting them any more. Not to mention I was running out of mandrel roles to finish with. I do see that I need to run the cross buffs over them a little. the second head turned out with a better finsh but still had carbon spots that I could not, would not attempt to get at do to closeness of seats. I have night mares about those valve seats:nono:

Bring on the TEACHER>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I do not have an gasket kit yet to compare. I have been waiting untill I get my crank mic'ed before I get the main bearings. I going to get a kit from summit and I needed to have the heads done before I brought everyting to the machine shop and in turn he will tell me what over I need to go. I know your going to ask about the port matching for the intake.... And i know this was propbly a bad thing:nono: I used the old gasket to port match. I did leave a little room for error and I can always touch up when I get every thing back.

Getting a compliment like that form u means alot :hail: :hail:

 

Ahhh, you have learned well, grasshopper

It all looks fairly good to me. Wasn't very hard to do, was it? The exhaust ports polished up pretty nicely. The bowls are smoothly contoured, just like you want them for good flow. And the intake runners have a nice 40 to 80 grit looking finish on them, which swirls the air-fuel mix righteously.

One spot I should point out, though it seems to make minimal difference overall, is the upper left and right corners of the intake runners. You can see where the old gasket fit, it has left its outline. Try to gasket match those areas for the final touch on a very nicely done set of 416s.

I was watching HorsePower TV this afternoon and they flow benched a set of smallblock Chevy heads. It turns out that the gasket matching was only worth 3 cfm, which makes them least in importance and only necessary for the last little touch on a text-book job.

Looks like they should add somewhere in the region of 30 hp on your 305. Not bad for about 20 hrs of work, eh?

PS Can you post some pics of the intake and exhaust short side radiuses?

 

84, that's why I didn't jump on the intake matching, at least not right away

I still say a very fine job for the first time around (I really like how those exhaust ports shined up)

 

What cam, intake, carb and headers are you going to run with these heads?

 

Not sure about headers, but from what I've gathered with talking to him, the factory q-jet, L69 intake, and the Crane Powermax 2040 (p/n 114132) cam.

Say...i have a set of SLP's that aren't getting used at the moment....

 

cam is a crane cam CRN-114132 210*/216* .50 duration lift .440"/.454" rpm range 2,000-5,000 Matching Crane CRN99848 valve springs

Intake: Stock intake from L69 HO

Carb: IS stock Q-jet 4bbr

Header: I have not decided on them yet


Got any help for me

 

Yea, I have some SLP headers and an SLP Y-pipe. Headers are 1 5/8" primary. Fully emissions legal, if need be (air tubes and o2 bung).

 

I have yet heard a price on these not being used slp that are collecting dust and will rot away and get forgotten about which will probly be sold at a yard sale by your girlfreind so she can get through collage. U should let goof them for a reasonable price to a over budget rebuild fellow 3rd gen brother who has praised your knowledge of 3rd gen openly in threads like these who could really use them for his going to be fine specimen of a 3rd gen Z28* CAMARO.
Did I grovel enough... Let me know

 

Don't you have to go patrol?

Price? I'm thinking...

HAHAHAHA. (And it's collEge, a collage is an artistic assembly of various other things...ok, now I'm just pickin on you )

 

OK, that is pretty close to my setup and should work out to about 300 hp gross or around 220 hp at the rear wheels. Mid- to low-14s in the quarter and a very driveable combo. It'll keep a big smile on your face for a while, and the heads will work equally as well with a 350 when that time rolls around

 

Here is a mock up of it using DD2000. Looks almost exactly like mine

I fudged a file for the Crane 2040 cam since I don't have all the necessary specs to give you greater accuracy.

 

And here is the table for it.

 

Sitting Bull thanks for the dyno sheets. We are very close with our setups and it is nice to see how it will look on the dyno. I do not have that opprotunity to do dyno where I live. Closest would be about 3hrs away. This is way cool:hail: :hail:
I was wondering and maybe u answereed this before some where but this is my thread so I will ask again I see u have the lG4 heads (PORTED) How do they compare with flow with the 416's (ported) do yours flow better or same or what.

Thanks again for the dyno sheets. This is like getting a A+ from your teacher.. To me anyways These are better numbers than I had hopped for.

 

said you mocked my numbers in they are right on tho

 

What I have done with the LG4 home ported file for DD2000 is to limit the peak flow to 210 cfm at .500 lift and scaled it back fairly steadily from there to .050 or so. This makes the heads not appear to be as efficient as, say, L31 Vortecs (which flow 228 cfm), and is useful in helping us to NOT overestimate our hp and torque figures.

So, yes, I am using the same file and figures in both our engines' calculations. It makes our heads appear to be more efficient than stock 083 L98s (which flow in the 190 cfm range) but not up to the L31 standards--which is think is conservative but safe. (As an aside, F-Bird'88 gets flow of 238 cfm from his 416s, so Vortecs are not necessarily the standard to measure your particular heads by.)

DD2000 is not as refined in certain areas as DD2003 (which I also have) but I find the latter to be even more generous in its estimates than the former. So until I get some more info on why DD2003 is doing this I think we are better served with DD2000, which has proven itself able to get consistently within 5% of actual dyno numbers, as long as you are careful with the inputs.

Still, there is an even chance your engine is making more power than what is indicated

 

Very nice job, I did this same thing about 5 years ago with 416s, you can see the pics below, I think I may have been a little more aggressive around the valve guide area though, dunno what its worth.


http://www.geocities.com/topfuelcyclist/Dcp01054.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/topfuelcyclist/Dcp01055.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/topfuelcyclist/Dcp01056.jpg


I left the stock size 1.84/1.5 valves in there, had a three angle valve job done with backcut on the valves, didnt even clearance the bore, had the heads milled to 51cc's for 10:1 cr on my 305 .030 over with dished pistons. Valve guides cut down, and elarged the pushrod slot.

Im running a 214/224 cheapo ssi cam with 1.6 RR's for .474/.498 lift with an edelbrock torker II single plane and full exhaust.

Ive run as quick as 13.6@103.67 Naturally aspirated
and as fast as 13.7@104.97 naturally aspirated
both with 2.2 60 foots

there is ALOT of potential in these heads with the right combination.

I hope to hit low thirteens (if the engine isnt allready too tired) now that i've converted to fuel injection and it pulls hard out of the hole *** opposed to a bog.

 

There is no difference between the LG4 and 416 heads, as the LG4's got the 416 heads.

But yes, the general power you should get should compare relativly easily with the charts that Sitting Bull posted. Peak lift is one thing, however, to make it as accurate as possible a complete flow chart would be nice. Sure, flow at max lift is important, but honestly, how long does the valve stay at peak lift comparted to how long it's at the lower lifts? I'd like to see the numbers Sitting Bull used for the rest of the lifts, at the specified intervals.

Also, 84, I ran it in comparison to the Xe256h (I have DD2000 as well), and the results aren't really that different. The Xe256 just gives a flatter, mor consistant powerband from about 1500 through to about 5000. The Crane starts a bit later, like 2000ish.

On a side note, I'm interested in seeing how your heads would do on a flow bench.

On the other side note, for the valve timing for the Crane cam, after doing the math, I came up with this:

IVO: 26 BTDC
IVC: 64 ABDC
EVO: 77 BBDC
EVC: 19 ATDC

Using some flow files I fould posted by kitch, which are:

Lift Intake Exhaust both @ 28"
.050" 29.4 24.6
.100" 57.4 48.3
.150" 88.3 75.0
.200" 122.1 100.2
.250" 152.2 113.9
.300" 172.9 128.7
.350" 188.7 139.4
.400" 201.8 147.3
.450" 213.3 152.2
.500" 217.8 159.2

The curve I got was pretty much the same, I peaked at 306 hp at 5000 rpm and 347 tq at 4000. The rest of the graph was about the same in shape, just moved about 500 rpm lower and upped a tad bit.

 

you guys are doing this to a lg4 car ,, if you did thi to a lb9 would you see better numbers ,



i recently ported my 86 305 tpi 20 000 original mile heads and installed the comp x treme energy 212-218 449-456 112 lsa ,

i would think with tpi the tourgue numbers would be massive 315 tourque is not much ,

just curious

 

He's already chosen the desired method of induction. I'm going to leave that well alone. He already has a good portion of the things he needs. I think the decision of EFI or carb is long gone.

On a side note, just for reference, TPI just raises peak tq by about 5 lb-ft. Not that much. It does, however, make more torque earlier in the powerband.

 

I used the following intake flow rates for my "LG4 Home Ported" head file:

cfm - lift

135 @ .200
187 @ .300
200 @ .400
210 @ .500
215 @ .600

And here is the exhaust side:

cfm - lift

87 @ .200
120 @ .300
130 @ .400
140 @ .500
145 @ .550

Pretty conservative. They probably flow more, especially the exhaust side.

 

Here is the overlay comparison of my original workup of Kelly's motor versus the revised model with corrected cam event timings. The corrected graph actually has less area under the curve than my erroneous one! Maybe I should sell my info back to Crane and make a shekel or two

 

And here is my engine compared to Kelly's, which differs only in its use of a Crane PowerMax 260 cam. For some reason, and even with less intake lift, (.427 versus .440), mine makes slightly more power. Could just be the margin of error, though.

 

I think youre doing a good job, along with the chamber work and clean-up I would contour the valveguide bosses a little more, make them as narrow as you can without biting into the guide much.

 

at my own pictures and think I will go back in and cut the valve guides some more. It is amazing what u see when u can look at something thru a pic. I see the cambers are in need but I do not dare to go at them any more in fear of two things. (1) I will hit a valve seat :nono: (again) and two I do not want to loose CC in the chamber size and lower Compression. if it wasn't for that I would go at them with a carbide cutter......

Thanks for the input.

 

The valve guide area is not part of the combustion chamber, so don't worry.

What about those short side radiuses?

 

Come one Sitting bull I know that valve guide and chambers are not the same part. I was answering perry93's questions about cutting down the valve guides and then he said the chambers need to be worked some more.
I know I sound and look stupid but give me some credit at this point. If I thought the chambers and valve guides were the same part I would be in bIg trouble at this stage of the rebuild.

U have taught well Sitting bullson...Grasshoper very pleased

 

short side radi very clean and smooth no bumps or edges.

 

Then you bolt it up and that feeling of pleased changes sudenly to an uncontrollable delight as you benefit from the increased flow.

 

Maybe, maybe not.

Depends upon whether the rest of the package "needs" the increased flow capability. For instance, doing such porting on my 396, as well as intake and header port matching, did next to nothing for it - even though everyone "said" it would make a big difference. In order for it to make any difference from here, I'm going to need more cam.

Restore, any particular reason for the 2040 cam instead of the 2050? It's been my daily driver for almost 3 years now. Requires more stall, but otherwise is a fine cam for a "supported" 305.

 

I didn't go with the 2050 because the guys at sumit said it would give me issues at idle and fuel economy. They said that the the 2040 is as high as I should go with my set up. I was not going to go the proformace avenue but as I have gone along I find my self getting the the llittle better stuff and as I look at the 2050 I prolly should have gone with that. I need to remember to ask you guys or do a search before I trust a non-thirdgen.

 

Get you a couple of old valves to drop in to protect your valvejob while your working the chamber. The work I would mainly do is unshrouding and polishing. You can simulate a "0" deck with a thinner gasket. Better quench means better knock resistance.