that's right. i finally made it to the 1/4 mile! it didn't go quite as fast as i had hoped but nothing ever does, right? my best was a 15.31 @ 88 mph. i hit a couple of 2.12 60's too. my new 2200-2400 torque convertor arrived at my house while i was at the track, too bad it couldn't have been a couple of days ago. anyways, it should be going in soon then i'll post new times.

if you missed my 1/8 mile video before, here's the link http://www.williamjmckinney.com/967run/967run.wmv sorry, no 1/4 mile videos yet.

 

congrats man!! nice run!!!:hail:

 

that is a pretty good run

 

great job btw what type of mods do you have?

 

low 15's is actually pretty decent...

 

Not too shabby.

 

Got my little 2.8 beat, Might I recommend a shift kit at the least- You have alot of lag between shifts- You are loosing time there.

 

i got my shift kit installed about a week after that video was shot. it shifts hard now.

 

Thats a really strong timeslip. What mods do you have as of now?

 

holy ****

i just watched the video, that was a nice *** launch, clean and hard. How did you manage that with a 3.1?

 

mods: 3.1 bored +.030", custom domed pistons, about 10.75:1 compression, biggest factory produced valves, 3-angle valve job, fully ported and polished heads, ported intake, 1.6:1 roller tip rockers, crane cam - .484 INT lift and .512 EX lift, hooker super comp LT headers, custom y-pipe, 3" "catback".

lee7: how did i manage that launch? held the breaks, revved it to 1500, then let off the breaks and put the gas to the floor. i have my new 2200 convertor in now so, we'll see what it'll do now. i wanna see atleast some 2.0X 60's now!

 

Congrats on the great times, your 1/8th video rocks.


Keep up the good work, and keep us posted.

 

thanks for all the compliments! i'm pretty happy with it for a V6 but i'm not gonna stop. i want to go faster. i've thought about a V8 but anyone can make a V8 go fast; i wanna be different!

 

Whats the duration on your camshaft , perhaps the pn. can we see any pictures of the heads? Thats a really good time, I think you should be able to go 14.90's with a bit more tuning and your stall. What gears are in the car? Ever tried nitrous?

 

i don't remember the duration numbers or the part number on the cam...it is made by crane, i know that and it's bigger than the 2030. i am running a stock computer chip in it still but i'm working on a trying to get a custom chip. anybody have any aldl software that will read the 730 ecm with the $88 mask? the new convertor is it now so, ??? i am running a posi 4.10 rear end. i don't want to run nitrous! i have considered an alcohol injection system though.

 

oh yea, the picture...

 

Looks good. Keep us posted.

 

Whoops theres the puzzle piece- Home porting job. You removed the intake vane- thats what is killing your perfomance I was wondering why you are not running faster times. That vane INCREASES flow into the chamber by 17%. Get some new heads and leave the vanes- you'll see better #'s- explains why my 2.8 is only 1/2 sec off your time,you should have me beat by a greater margin with your specs.

Sorry to bare bad news- but if you want it to run stronger/better #'s, you'll have to get new heads.

Note; GM has done extensive testing on these motors and has concluded that the addition of the intake port vanes tremendously helps performance- even on their all out race motors. Everting and everywhere I have read states in bold print- DO NOT, DO NOT Under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES REMOVE THE INTAKE VANE. Its hard to argue with a company that has millions behind its R&D program. I can post any and all literature on this for your future benefit if needed.

 

Not trying to be rude or anything, but i was wondering that how come if those vanes work, you dont see any aftermarket Small Block chevy heads with them? I have pondered over this in my mind for a while, and have decided it must be a Patent issue or something of the like.

If these heads can flow 1.5hp per CI with the Vane still there, then they must be good for something.

And you dont need to get new heads if you already have a mig welder, just weld the vanes back in place and shape them with a rotary tool.

I think anyone would be happy with a 14 second V6 that launches like that. 14 Sec is pretty quick, sure its not mind blowing 500hp+ fast, but it is definatly decent.

 

Here's some info out of GM's power manual.

Lee, He's not 14 sec he's 15.3 (and 14.9 is not considered a 14sec car, its a 14.9 sec car- too many peolple pull that crap with the #'s)

AM91- you have a fast V6 , please don't get me wrong- I'm not bashing you, I am giving some helpful info. Power is made in the heads.

 

hes almost into the 14's, im sure he can get there.

Im hoping to run 12's with the turbo.

 

AGood2.8, I'd like to see the rest of that article... can you post it?

I've seen the vane everyone is referring to... I'm not sure I can see how that vane increases airflow. Not disputing anything, just wondering how physically, that small blockage helps airflow.

The only thing I can think of, is that as the air is pulled from the middle/base intake, the vane helps direct the air directly into the valve area, for maximum cylinder fill as the engine pulls the air in.

I'd like to see some flow numbers, and see exactly where this 17% increase in flow occurs. I'm betting it helps low/mid lift flow numbers, but isn't helping up on the top end...

Could be wrong. I'd love to find out!

 

Here's something... I still want some flow numbers.

http://users.spec.net/home/emxjc/heads.html

 

the reason they put the vane in was to use a large volume ports and fix the flat spot in the flow curve by dropping the intake runner floor below the valve seat. had they raised the port roof up 1/4 inch then the vane would not have been nessacary. im not saying nothing but i have played with the 60v6 intake ports and by playing with the roof of the intake runner and rasing the floor and deletling the vane it picked up big flow. but there was no cast iron basically left 9in the port so it was simply and engineering excerxise.

 

To me in that picture it looks like the vanes are still there?? Are you sure your not jumping to assume something not true, thats is, he left them there?

 

Power is made in the combo , 14.9 is a 14 second car. He has about 30 hp shy of that but he could pick that up somewhere.









Here is more info on the vane.

 

Read the article above! You just found out!

 

Da beefy... Nice article - where was it from?

Also note - that the bumps were made to increase intake MIXTURE flow... from a carb'd engine. Could it be, that the bumps have no real purpose in a FI engine?

Seeing as how the fuel is injected, already atomized, right onto the back of the valve (I'm sure it's a few degrees off... anyone know exactly?) then the bump would not be needed to improve the mixture 'flow' Without the emulsified mixture of fuel added into the incoming air charge, the air by itself is lighter, flows better, and would not need as much 'redirecting'.

I also can't help but feel that in a boosted scenario, the bumps would be more restriction than helpful. I'd love to find out, though.

 

Both Yenko and MacPherson state that the "bumps" in the intake floor were not completely removed- Yenko Katech barely touched them and MacPherson removed about 1/2 of it and extensively shaped the runner to help compensate for the bend in air flow- What they are not telling you is that MacPherson did a substantial amount of welding to reinforce the waterjackets to allow for a more radiused bend of intake flow- but again, vanes were not entirely removed. The vane does not help air and gas mix, it saysit helps deliver intake mixture flow to the chamber. It swirls the flow in a way that increases chamber density.

Doward, that is the entire article pertaining to head port work. It does apply to FI engines also- The GM power manual was printed in 1988 and does extensively about FI motors for race applications.

 

To add to this, There are Two bands that kill performance on these tight spaced 60*motors. The first is the 145* bend from the upper to middle runner- hence my plenum project, and the 2nd is the vane area and the 90* bend after it downward into the combustion chamber.

 

That was scaned from the book v6 performance by pat gahnal.

 

I understand that, What are you saying? I replied above already that both companies in your scanned article left the bumps somewhat intact- they were not removed more than half way at most.

Super six has also done extensive testing with these heads and has increase intake flow another 15% on the intake side with the vane intacted. They concluded that the only other improvement was to add a larger 1.8" intake valve. I personally am iffy about the 1.8" seat working without things cracking. There is not much room to spare even with the stock 1.72" valve seat.

Supersixes heads are up to 149 i on a flowbench, up from 128.

 

From the picture resolution I see on my computer, it looks like they are gone. Its hard to see from the angle posted, but my guess could be wrong- If it is, then my apologies to AM91.
Edit: I printed out the picture of your ports and still can not tell if the vanes are there or if it is grind marks left from where they were removed- My guess from the pic is that it looks like they were grinded away- still not certain.

 

Ok now Im lost?

 

http://users.spec.net/home/emxjc/flow_bench.html

 

now that i look at it harder, the vanes are still there. Infact he did not even touch them because they are still brown (rust)

The brown line in the middle of the runners are the untouched vanes.

 

If they are there then they are rounded over? I dont see the sharks fin shape that creates the high pressure zone for the inner bend to the cylinder. Its function is to divert the air flow to the outer and side edges of the port (best discribed in essence as sitting up to the outside of an upcoming corner so you can apex the corner faster) and also aerodynamically creating a high pressure zone on the inner most radius part- thus pulling or curving the air into that direction shortly after the vane creating a more natural flowing corner and lessening turbulance.

Hope this makes sence to all- I don't know if I can clarify it any better.

 

Its obvious they are still there and that most likely he used a standard abrasive kits small barrel roll to channel on the sides of the vain. Alot what like I did to my heads, I did a minor clean up of the intake ports , removed little off the fin so it almost resembles a gamble roof. Bob Mcray may be the best skilled 60 degree v6 head porter and on his heads the vain is still there but definately reshaped. Just look at the afr job in the second picture.

Anyways the exhaust side is the area to concentrate.

 

As i was saying. if you could find a reasonable way to increase the roof port hieght and raise the floor ( epoxy). then cutting the vian down to regain cross sectional area you can see easily with irno to spare see 200cfm at 600 lift. the biggest issue is the fact that from the port floor to the bowl radious the angle is 120*. thats the problem.

 

on my heads, the vanes were rounded, not really like a sharks fin as you describe it.

edit: mine did NOT look like this, mine were large and round.

 

good2.8, look again, use another monitor, something....the vains are still there. in fact, i hardly touched them. and, the two sets of heads (for these motors) that i have ported have both had tall rounded vains, i think that's how they come from the factory. the 'shark fin' vains, i believe, are gotten from lots of grinding, not from the factory. i had not seen any pictures of port work on these heads when i did mine, that's the reason i didn't do much on the vains, i want to pull them back off now though (have been wanting to for a couple of months) to do some more port work. and, i thought you had said a little while back that, your car being set up for road racing, you'd be bored to take it to the dragstrip, now your 2.8 is running .5 sec off of my time when i have lots of work done to my 3.1?? anyways, hopefully i will be seeing 14s soon, even if it is only 14.9x's. i had hoped for it thurs. but it didn't happen.

 

None of the heads came with a shark fin , all the stock heads have "bumps". The picture that lee7 posted above is modified heavily.

Heavily modified heads done by bob mccray. 450 hp n/a


http://614streets.com/SS_02.jpg


http://614streets.com/SS_03.jpg


http://614streets.com/SS_05.jpg

 

614: do you have anymore pictures of the exhaust side? any where you can see down in the port? what's the advantage to the "D" shape? that would probably cause problems at the header flanges on mine. but mine probably could use more work on the exhaust side also.

 

I dont know why, but they are like that for a reason. Take note all the aluminum gen II and III 3100/3400 with aluminum heads sport the d ports...........

 

Prolly has alot to do with if you lower the port on the exhaust side you can hinder velocity because hot gasses hit the stem area and upper expansion of the spent gasses travel quicker on the top side. Some science stuff like that.

 

AM91, my car is setup for roadrace, however, my drivetrain rivals any V8 on this board and the V6 will never grenade the built 10bolt. Yes I would be embarassed to take the V6 Camaro to the dragstrip!- for now. I have run an Unofficial 15.8 then 15.9 back to back with my little 2.8 It has much more done to it than most here. Come for a ride sometime- you'd be impressed how fast it revs through the taller 3.23's . You don't need a drag setup to run 14's or worst. This little 2.8 is perfect inside and out and has eaten for lunch a freshly tuned 4th gen 3.4- yes its a 1/2sec off your 3.1- drivetrain first (done), then monster 3.4! I will be knocking high13's- I promise.

 

Here- in case you haven't seen what this car looks like underneath. There's an ACPT carbonfiber driveshaft and FULL race Custom trans (not an over the counter perf 700r4- fully custom built/convertor ( 9" 30spline input shaft) hidden under there as well. Displacement doesnt mean crap if the rest of the car isn't up to par.

 

614streets, only the genIII 660 have the D shaped ports from eth factory, the genII still uses the round ports.

 

This is why I like this forum. Thanks for the correction Raven!

 

good2.8 - i don't want to get into an arguement or anything but... i would like to go for a ride in your car, too bad you're on the other side of the country. i don't have a carbon fiber driveshaft, i don't have $800 to put into something like that, all my motor parts and work cost a little less than that. i don't know what can be so different in your tranny other than maybe hardened gears and stuff like that. does it have original ratios or not? all i have done to my tranny is a B&M shift kit. i have a new 9.5" (i don't know if i'd call mine custom or not) 2200 stall convertor. and, as far as the rest of the car being up to par, i don't know of any problems on mine. when i had 3.23 gears in my car, it'd stin the RR all the way through first...now with the posi and 4.10s it'll do the same and with the shift kit, it'll spin a little in second sometimes too. congrats on beating some 3.4s, i have beaten a couple of older mustang 5.0s at the dragstrip. i'd like to see some official times on your car too, even though you'd be embarassed. actually, when you have a quick v6 in one of the cars, the attention that you get at the track is pretty cool. trust me, i don't know how many people come up to me at the track asking what i have done to mine.