When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Focal ES100K2's No cutting of anything besides the factory 4x6 mount. You pull the 4x6's out with the mounting plate. Measure the inside diameter and make yourself a thin 1/4" plywood adapter, then cut the speaker/tweet hole out and use panel bond adhesive to glue it to the metal. Then you have to use a dremel to cut the edges of the 4x6 mounting hole to fit the 4" speakers because you have to move it off center to fit both components. Afterward, put some sound deadener on top and mount your speakers. I had these in here in January and then blew the tweeters so Crutch sent me another set discounted. I just got everything back in there and I even sprung for a 80's radar detector for car shows.... Because, after all.... You werent $#!t back in the 80's unless you had a radar detector!!
I have been watching Charlie's videos. Am I understanding correctly? Can the stock runners be massaged enough to hit your goals?
It’s just for experimentation. See what shapes, radiuses, finishes can do… and check thicknesses. Etc. I just sent him more for the cause… I think his base is probably 45lbs lighter than stock… lol
Any ideas on what a stock TPIS BM will flow? I see maybe 260.
I think the exhaust plays a big part as well. I am able to get a lot better exhaust on the engines I run than a typical 3rd Gen due to the chassis i run them in. My old 350 Vortec TPI carried power out well to 6,000 rpm. It however did have very good flowing Vortecs, ported Vortec base, a ported plenum and the cam was actually ground similarly to how circle track 2bbl cams are ground. Cam designers have methods to help build power when pulling against a restrictive intake system and the cam I had in it had been custom ground by Reed cams to work with the added restriction of 2bbl TBI. I ran that same engine with TBI on both a dual plane and victor jr 2bbl single plane as well as the modified TPI. TPI cut nearly 500 rpm off the top of the powerband compared to TBI on the 2bbl Vic Jr.
This is the exhaust layout I am working on for my Proflow 4 injected L31 build. Those old Doug Thorley 315Y headers are actually going on a 3rd van now. Used when I bought them, they were on my 1983 G20 and now on the 1987 G20. I am able to get very nice 2.5" dual cat exhaust systems under the vans. The tri-Ys work exceptionally well in the RPM range you are working with. It is a shame that SLP discontinued their 3rd gen tri-y syetup as it worked incredibly well. I love having the room to setup a decent exhaust system though.
Hey Fast. I agree a good exhaust is a must have and probably has a part to play. The EPA is systematically killing the exhaust systems for any car made after 1974 and there have already been numerous Thirdgen headers disappear from the catalogs. I was going to jump on the Dyno Don last call thread he had but I was just too busy with the shop and literally didnt have any time to do the steps I needed to to get the the order done. Right now I am looking at the ARH 1 3/4" system but I dont see any reviews on it. Just a few inquiries. I do have a set of ceramic coated off brand 1 5/8" headers and 2.50" y pipe but the y pipe right hand tube just dead ends into the left. Its quite the junky design and I have no idea who would design an aftermarket exhaust like this. Its definitely a cheaper brand probably from CHINA. Damn Chinese got their commie fingers in everything and rip off peoples designs with no shame and everyone just lets them do it. Its astonishing!!! That being said, I have a very strict USA policy. I try to buy everything from USA only companies where manufacturing and machining is done in the US. Of course, sometimes youre screwed and have no choice. ARH is also Merica made if I am not mistaken so I will probably go that route unless Don wants another round of retirement funds to play with.
I had a couple questions asking why I didn’t go with an aluminum head and paint it, which I answered and then I had someone else ask so I figured I would just make a post.
Besides the fact I want the car to appear original… Iron heads are stronger and I believe they’re better for a car that sits a lot. I believe it’s just a better material for this. I’ve noticed over the years on cars I work on the aluminum headed engines with iron blocks have major corrosion problems while the all iron stuff doesn’t. This is also why boats still largely use all iron stuff.
This is a picture I took today at work.
This is off a SBC 383 with AFR 195 heads that’s 2-3 years old at most and besides the pitting, the inside of the water jacket is actually being eaten away. I’ve seen this and A LOT worse over the years and it’s not just corrosion in the heads but this stuff gets started and then gets EVERYWHERE in the engine and radiator. Is it avoidable? Sorta. People speculate but I’ve never seen anyone do something about it and then show me a difference. Some swear by different coolant and others say grounding is the problem (which I don’t think is true as these older engines are simple and also grounded)…
Point is for a car that will sit a lot, the build up of silicates and other chemical changes from the chemicals needed to keep the iron block from rusting do interact and effect the aluminum. If you don’t believe me do a google search and look for a solution so you don’t ruin $2500 heads.
It’s all about preference and what the application is for and personally I still am a big iron head fan. I like aluminum too but I’ve had and ridden in some pretty gnarly iron headed cars over the years. Especially back in the day.
I had a couple questions asking why I didn’t go with an aluminum head and paint it, which I answered and then I had someone else ask so I figured I would just make a post.
Besides the fact I want the car to appear original… Iron heads are stronger and I believe they’re better for a car that sits a lot. I believe it’s just a better material for this. I’ve noticed over the years on cars I work on the aluminum headed engines with iron blocks have major corrosion problems while the all iron stuff doesn’t. This is also why boats still largely use all iron stuff.
This is a picture I took today at work.
This is off a SBC 383 with AFR 195 heads that’s 2-3 years old at most and besides the pitting, the inside of the water jacket is actually being eaten away. I’ve seen this and A LOT worse over the years and it’s not just corrosion in the heads but this stuff gets started and then gets EVERYWHERE in the engine and radiator. Is it avoidable? Sorta. People speculate but I’ve never seen anyone do something about it and then show me a difference. Some swear by different coolant and others say grounding is the problem (which I don’t think is true as these older engines are simple and also grounded)…
Point is for a car that will sit a lot, the build up of silicates and other chemical changes from the chemicals needed to keep the iron block from rusting do interact and effect the aluminum. If you don’t believe me do a google search and look for a solution so you don’t ruin $2500 heads.
It’s all about preference and what the application is for and personally I still am a big iron head fan. I like aluminum too but I’ve had and ridden in some pretty gnarly iron headed cars over the years. Especially back in the day.
I will not knock your head choice, but I have used Nissan Blue coolant in everything for over a decade now. Even stuff that sits around is as clean as new. With all the aluminum in the manifold and modern radiators, I would consider the Nissan Blue coolant as it was formated especially to protect engines with a mixture of iron and aluminum.
Hey Fast. I agree a good exhaust is a must have and probably has a part to play. The EPA is systematically killing the exhaust systems for any car made after 1974 and there have already been numerous Thirdgen headers disappear from the catalogs. I was going to jump on the Dyno Don last call thread he had but I was just too busy with the shop and literally didnt have any time to do the steps I needed to to get the the order done. Right now I am looking at the ARH 1 3/4" system but I dont see any reviews on it. Just a few inquiries. I do have a set of ceramic coated off brand 1 5/8" headers and 2.50" y pipe but the y pipe right hand tube just dead ends into the left. Its quite the junky design and I have no idea who would design an aftermarket exhaust like this. Its definitely a cheaper brand probably from CHINA. Damn Chinese got their commie fingers in everything and rip off peoples designs with no shame and everyone just lets them do it. Its astonishing!!! That being said, I have a very strict USA policy. I try to buy everything from USA only companies where manufacturing and machining is done in the US. Of course, sometimes youre screwed and have no choice. ARH is also Merica made if I am not mistaken so I will probably go that route unless Don wants another round of retirement funds to play with.
Your Tri Y's do look nice
later
I completely get that. I had to create a custom setup and the only headers on the market for a G-van now are Hedmans as Hooker has dropped their offering as well. I finished up the Thorley header install and exhaust build earlier and took it for a short test drive. It is pulling over 1 in/hg more idle vacuum now. Driving it, feels like I pulled the small block 350 Vortec out and dropped in a Vortec 454, rediculous torque increase everywhere in the powerband. With properly scavenged cylinders this little 350 absolutely RIPS now and the difference is noticeable from off-idle tip-in and beyond, just more everywhere at any throttle position. Interestingly the Proflow 4 ECM is also pulling a ton of fuel now at idle and light throttle compared to the Hooker manifolds and ~5' of open 2.5" pipes that were on it. My 02 was over 4' from the end of the pipe as well so I do not feel like it was air reversion from the 02 being too close to the end of the pipe either.
I am going to install a MSD6A box on it tomorrow I have had laying around the shop for years and wire it up through a set of weatherproof Detchewerks connectors that will allow it to easily be bypassed if it were to ever act up. In multiple older setups I ran the MSD box provided a noticeable difference, especially compared to using the stock GM HEI module. Anything over 5,500 rpm with the GM modules experienced a high rpm spark fall off. With moderately cammed up stuff the MSD box also produced a smoother idle and more idle vacuum by eliminating many of the complete misfires and partial misfires from exhaust dilution. I had the fuel pulsator split between the pump and sending unit in the tank on my 83 G20 on my way home one day. I limped that TPI home unkowingly with only ~20 psi of fuel pressure at light throttle. It is amazing just how lean of a mixture the MSD will light off. I knew it had an issue when it stopped running at heavy throttle, was hard to restart and then lacked throttle response to any more than the lightest of throttle opening. I never suspected a TPI could idle much less move under its own power with 20 psi of fuel pressure.
I love the sound too, quiet at idle and really opens up when you throttle it.
This was the biggest surprise though after installing those headers and building that exhaust. As the engine warms up fully and the IATs start to creep up the injector pulsewidth (labeled Injection) continues to drop to maintain the correct AFR as the air becomes less dense. It is running noticeably less pulse width, was not even completely warmed up and was still running a bit rich.
This was with the Hooker 2.5" outlet SBC manifolds into ~60" of 2.5" open pipes on each bank.
This was the biggest surprise though after installing those headers and building that exhaust. As the engine warms up fully and the IATs start to creep up the injector pulsewidth (labeled Injection) continues to drop to maintain the correct AFR as the air becomes less dense. It is running noticeably less pulse width, was not even completely warmed up and was still running a bit rich.
This was with the Hooker 2.5" outlet SBC manifolds into ~60" of 2.5" open pipes on each bank.
I will not knock your head choice, but I have used Nissan Blue coolant in everything for over a decade now. Even stuff that sits around is as clean as new. With all the aluminum in the manifold and modern radiators, I would consider the Nissan Blue coolant as it was formated especially to protect engines with a mixture of iron and aluminum.
I'll give it a shot. Its not going to hurt to try. You can see from my pic the pitting was causing a slow coolant leak back into the valley. Looks like it just made it too.
-10 is removing fuel from the system. If you were adding fuel you would be compensating for the extra air the engine is using and thus, burning more fuel. This seems backwards to me. You have a big increase in power so your definitely going the right way. Let me think here...
I have used Nissan Blue coolant in everything for over a decade now. Even stuff that sits around is as clean as new. With all the aluminum in the manifold and modern radiators, I would consider the Nissan Blue coolant as it was formated especially to protect engines with a mixture of iron and aluminum.
Pretty sure any/all brand name coolant of today, will accomplish that task, handily. The "problem" comes when the coolant doesn't get changed. Which, people don't change their coolant, then they have problems like MrIROBZ posted. It's not the coolant's fault. Nissan doesn't have a corner on the "good coolant" market and there is nothing special or unique about "Nissan Blue" coolant...they likely don't even make coolant. Use any coolant...change it when it's time. FYI.
Service Tests Solve Aluminum Cylinder Head Corrosion Problems 490093
Aluminum cylinder heads have been widely used on automobiles during the past fifteen years to increase the efficiency of engine operation. The great majority have given satisfactory service during many years of use and high mileages. In 1938 their use was greatly curtailed because of competitive costs. The competitive situation now prevailing favors the re-adoption of aluminum cylinder heads. Because of this, it is fortunate that the two problems formerly associated with the use of aluminum cylinder heads have been solved. One was difficult removal resulting from corrosion at the stud clearances. Tests have shown that this can be prevented easily by the use of cap screws, larger stud clearances, or stud coating compounds.
The other problem was corrosion at the coolant inlet ports. The causes and means of prevention of this difficulty have been determined recently by means of road tests of seventeen automobiles, and cyclic tests of V-8 engines with divided radiators. It was learned that the corrosion can be prevented by simple methods which can be applied by the engine manufacturer at little or no added cost. The corrosion was found to result primarily from the galvanic couple formed with the iron cylinder block. Corrosion did not occur in road tests of engines having aluminum blocks as well as aluminum cylinder heads.
One of the major factors affecting the rate of galvanic attack is the electrode potential of the cylinder head alloy. To achieve the low potential desired, the alloy should contain an adequate concentration of copper, and no more than a few tenths of a percent of zinc. Also, the alloy should be in the as-cast or solution heat-treated condition to retain sufficient copper in solid solution.
Another effective means of reducing port corrosion was found to be the use of a protective design of cylinder head gasket which covered the port shoulders of the cylinder head and preferably extended into the ports. Such gaskets protect the shoulders against erosion and lengthen the paths of the galvanic currents.
Proprietary alcohol and ethylene glycol antifreezes, and inhibitors used to prevent rusting of the iron cylinder block, were found to be important accelerators of port corrosion, particularly when mixed with water containing several hundred parts per million of chloride. These conclusions are contrary to those previously drawn from continuous engine tests before the development of cyclic testing. In the recent cyclic and road tests, the high chloride water when tested alone caused practically no corrosion. Also another municipal water high in chloride, sulphate, alkalinity, and copper, caused no appreciable corrosion. Straight ethylene glycol and methanol were less corrosive than the proprietary products, which contain inhibitors of iron corrosion. The amount of dilution of alcohol and glycol antifreezes with water proved to be an important factor, 70 to 80% of water causing maximum corrosion. The preferred non-freezing coolant of these types is water containing at least fifty percent by colume of any proprietary ethylene glycol antifreeze. These vary somewhat in corrosiveness depending on the inhibitors of iron corrosion employed. Sodium benzoate and certain oils were the most satisfactory inhibitors from the standpoint of aluminum cylinder heads. Kerosene showed promise as a non-corrosive, non-freezing coolant under special conditions.
Inhibitors are sometimes used in tap water coolants to prevent rusting of the block and consequent clogging of the radiator. They cause corrosion of aluminum heads, even in the absence of antifreezes. Of the inhibitors tested in high chloride water, soluble oil was the least harmful to aluminum heads, and is therefore recommended where an inhibitor of iron corrosion must be used. Sodium benzoate has not yet been tested by the authors for such use but appears promising in view of the results reported by Vernon.(1) Chromates caused severe corrosion and their use with engines having aluminum cylinder heads and iron blocks cannot be too strongly condemned.
If the engine manufacturer uses aluminum cylinder heads of the recommended alloy composition and condition, and a protective design of gasket, harmful corrosion will be avoided with only moderate attention to the recommendations concerning antifreezes and inhibitors.
So basically what its saying is using a different formula for the aluminum and then adding a gasket which protects the entry to the aluminum water jacket will help prevent corrosion.. Thats it. Nothing else really stopped it it just instead lessened the effects.
Now I am not condemning aluminum heads. They are superior to iron for performance and in Texas they help control the head to the point of undeniable benefit.
All this being said, I WISH they made a 113 head with a modern chamber and better port. They don't and its unlikely that for what Im doing there will be any performance loss. As a matter of fact, there is an old wives tale supported by some pretty smart guys (nearly all of them you can name) which says given an iron and aluminum head on the exact same engine, the iron will produce slightly more power. I dont think this is true personally. Ive seen it go the other way as a matter of fact. I just want guys to be aware that you need to take extra steps when using aluminum heads to help prevent this and if you have an old car that isnt a racecar, theres nothing wrong with an iron head.
there is an old wives tale supported by some pretty smart guys (nearly all of them you can name) which says given an iron and aluminum head on the exact same engine, the iron will produce slightly more power. I dont think this is true personally. Ive seen it go the other way as a matter of fact.
I agree with you, that the Iron won't outperform aluminum. "Iron holds in heat, makes more power!" -Engine Masters tested this specific claim. IIRC there was around 3hp diff between two identical heads other than material.
That article was interesting...pretty old material though.
I agree with you, that the Iron won't outperform aluminum. "Iron holds in heat, makes more power!" -Engine Masters tested this specific claim. IIRC there was around 3hp diff between two identical heads other than material.
That article was interesting...pretty old material though.
Did you see the MT Engine Masters test on TV? They redid the test and aluminum won with less CFM. Here's the truth... its 2024 and there are now 4 door cars running 8.90's bone stock at 155mph+ - Who cares if it's an iron head for a 400hp deal. It'll still be just as irrelevant with aluminum heads.
What Im worried about right now is the tuning. I have TunerPro RT and all the chip burning equipment I need for doing a prom. I need to get going on that.
Iron headed here sort of by default.
In my latest hotrodding renaissance which started 25 years ago, Vortecs were the hot ticket for decent street performance on the cheap. Once I was ready to move on from the Vortecs, I kept the platform as I'd already invested in an intake. Along came the then next best Vortec head in the RHS Pro Torker. It too was iron as it was originally pitched as a replacement for certain racing classes. They've been worked over many times and while I've no complaints with the iron head performance, they're freaking heavy! Knocking 40 pounds off the front would do a world of good given my penchant for drag racing. Being lighter is as good, maybe better, than making more power.
That said, at my modest power levels, I'd say the contest between these iron heads and a comparable aluminum version is pretty much a wash. I would though, add another full point of compression if I went aluminum which would change the cam spec and then there would be an increase in output. More compression, more cam, more RPM, more power.
Now, as far as your project goes, where have you and Charlie landed? Is the intake sorted? Heads? Cam?
You had alluded to perhaps getting Jones to spec a cam. I'd be interested to see what kind of direction he'd go given what you've discovered in your testing. Seeing as DV and Charlie have a working relationship, Vizard's cam spec would be equally interesting.
Iron headed here sort of by default.
In my latest hotrodding renaissance which started 25 years ago, Vortecs were the hot ticket for decent street performance on the cheap. Once I was ready to move on from the Vortecs, I kept the platform as I'd already invested in an intake. Along came the then next best Vortec head in the RHS Pro Torker. It too was iron as it was originally pitched as a replacement for certain racing classes. They've been worked over many times and while I've no complaints with the iron head performance, they're freaking heavy! Knocking 40 pounds off the front would do a world of good given my penchant for drag racing. Being lighter is as good, maybe better, than making more power.
That said, at my modest power levels, I'd say the contest between these iron heads and a comparable aluminum version is pretty much a wash. I would though, add another full point of compression if I went aluminum which would change the cam spec and then there would be an increase in output. More compression, more cam, more RPM, more power.
Now, as far as your project goes, where have you and Charlie landed? Is the intake sorted? Heads? Cam?
You had alluded to perhaps getting Jones to spec a cam. I'd be interested to see what kind of direction he'd go given what you've discovered in your testing. Seeing as DV and Charlie have a working relationship, Vizard's cam spec would be equally interesting.
Right now as it stands the Dart heads, the TPIS Big Mouth intake and other parts for Charlies stock TPI endeavors are all in the mail and on the way. Camshaft at this point will either be a custom cam or the Lingenfelter 219 I have.
We can't go any further until AS&M runners are available. Simply put, I am not going to touch any of this until I know I can get those runners, because if something happens and I can't get them or there is a major problem with the finished product then all of this will be a lost cause. I will have to find another intake choice which will be the First (also on backorder) or a Super Ram.... and if I have a better intake then I might be better off with a bigger head. I called ASM yesterday and had another talk with Jim (owner at Arizona Speed and Marine) and he is doing everything he can to make sure the runners are nice pieces while still pushing production.
So other than a stock TPIS big mouth base vs ported stock base flow test, we are weeks away from any porting.
I'll give it a shot. Its not going to hurt to try. You can see from my pic the pitting was causing a slow coolant leak back into the valley. Looks like it just made it too.
-10 is removing fuel from the system. If you were adding fuel you would be compensating for the extra air the engine is using and thus, burning more fuel. This seems backwards to me. You have a big increase in power so your definitely going the right way. Let me think here...
I will admit the system now removing fuel especially at idle and lower rpm is weird but it is what it is doing and it is definitely making more torque. It is pulling more vacuum at idle too. It was not even a stock set of manifolds on it. It had the high flowing 2.5" outlet Hooker SBC manifolds on it, which have very nicely designed and cast passageways in them.
I will admit the system now removing fuel especially at idle and lower rpm is weird but it is what it is doing and it is definitely making more torque. It is pulling more vacuum at idle too. It alao was not even a stock set of manifolds on it. It had the high flowing 2.5" outlet Hooker SBC manifolds on it which have very nicely designed and cast passageways in them.
The only thing I can think of is maybe the engine could breathe better maybe reducing the labor at which it took to keep itself running. Sort of like fuel needed to run at 55mph. An unchoked engine will cruise much easier and get better fuel economy. Maybe this same thinking is whats responsible for the change.
The only thing I can think of is maybe the engine could breathe better maybe reducing the labor at which it took to keep itself running. Sort of like fuel needed to run at 55mph. An unchoked engine will cruise much easier and get better fuel economy. Maybe this same thinking is whats responsible for the change.
Alot of stuff in play for sure in exhaust systems. It is definitely scavenging better because headers and a full exhaust system increased the idle vacuum over 1 in/hg. IIRC I saw similar idle vacuum gains with these headers on a near stock 305 years ago in my 1983.
I re-snugged the header bolts again today and ran it for a while again today. Weather is not cooperating for a longer test drive as it has been raining more than 12 hours now. The PF4s ECM is starting to settle down though and with the engine warmed up a bit more it is idling on even less fuel now. Its running at ~25% less injector pulsewidth and carrying over 1 in/hg more manifold vacuum at idle. Engine is definitely requiring less power to even idle itself which means it has more torque to offer at the crank. Definite truth to an engine being a self running air pump and the better airflow can move into, through and out of it the more efficient it becomes.
It definitely has some quirks I am not a fan of though.
From what I hear its way better than Fitech or Sniper. Ive installed those on classic cars and nobody was thrilled. The ProFlo was miles ahead. My experience.
From what I hear its way better than Fitech or Sniper. Ive installed those on classic cars and nobody was thrilled. The ProFlo was miles ahead. My experience.
My biggest complaint is it cannot be fine tuned using a laptop and lacks any kind of idle compensation for A/C or a Park/Neutral switch. I have to idle it higher than necessary to keep it running shifting into gear, still surges when the AC kicks on and off (which happens a lot on a cycling clutch orifice tube system) as well as when you put it into gear the idle dips very low. If the engine is still cool, I have to two foot it to keep it running shifting into gear, especially going into Reverse. Edelbrock also stupidly only uses a minimal amount of vacuum advance (the 15* you can command does not hit 15* until 30 in/hg vacuum so at 20 in/hg you have an effective maximum of 10*) and the vacuum advance is not active at idle. The "Idle timing" is the same as initial advance with a regular distributor. I actually need more idle timing and less WOT low rpm timing. The timing control is out of touch with reality for a street vehicle and somewhat mimics a smog era ported vacuum equipped HEI. The single plane manifold also absolutely sucked, a Mercruiser MPI dual plane kills it in average torque and made as much as 40 ft/lbs more torque at 2,500 rpm.
FWIW... The throttle body flow on TPI has to be knocked down to correlate correctly... but after you do it.... its damn near perfect. This one could probably use 15 more cfm.
These programs including PipeMax have come a long way since the early 2000's.
Looks good. I wish TPI could support a 1205. it’s interesting the porting guys use a way different finish in the ports than what guys have been saying to use for years. lol
Still messing with PM and DS6… I finally figured out why it wanted far less CFM to match up. I admit I’m still learning with this stuff.
Parts still hadn’t shown up at Charlie’s… today or tomorrow probably.
It stopped raining, dried up and I drove the dual plane MPFI manifold equipped, mildly cammed L31 around a bit in the early AM hours. It absolutely RIPs. The poor 275/60R15 Cooper Cobra right rear tire did not stop spinning until 55-60 mph when the TH400 shifted into 2nd. The PF4 system shows it is using 77% injector duty cycle to run a 12.5:1 WOT air/fuel mixture at peak at 5,400-5,500 rpm and it has 29# injectors 29 x 8 / 0.45 x 0.77 = 396 hp of fuel delivery. That result might help with your injector sizing too.
Update… All the parts got there in one piece and Charlie flow tested the Darts. They did way better than we thought they would and it appears Dart has changed some things for the better. The guide boss is smaller and the valve job is nicer for flow numbers that are better than new Vortecs. Swirl was good and he did a Dykem pattern which showed an excellent spray pattern, going across the plug some…. But pretty good.
What do you guys think about doing something about the angle the base manifold has to the cylinder head? Its an interesting subject, where Charlie has 2 ideas... The first idea was seen on the video before last where he cut a small radius on the port roof to try and make the air curve into the head a little easier than a sharp turn.
The other idea he has is to shape the pushrod pinch in a way that uses all that port roof flow to aim down the short side.
All interesting...
One thing I need to call him about is mocking the heads and intake up and drilling the ends for port alignment so when I bolt onto my engine I can stick drill bits in the holes and make sure the heights are correct before tightening down everything.
Is there a cross section available at the manifold/head interface as seen from the side? Seems to me I've come across it.
I ask because I'm wondering if it's possible to raise that interface entirely. Keeping the CSA the same would mean filling in the floor which might not be practical (or possible).
Just throwing that thought out there.
Theres a diagram I posted a page or so back. Its in black and white but I dont know how accurate it is.
Im convinced a bigger pinch wont hurt it. All its going to do slow down the air looking at the air from the pinch to the intake. Its also going to speed it up from the pinch to the valve. When you have an ideal CSA already at the whole port, which has a speed associated with the CSA and work Charlie did... Why would controlling the speed further be of benefit? Other than using it to get more air on the short side, I dont see what benefit it would have. Then again, Im not a head porter.
VERY, VERY interested in this tuner does. Main issue with my Hawk is not know what the car is doing.
You have a 92 Firehawk? Thats the only other thirdgen Id want besides what I have. Very cool car!
Tuner wise, Im still figuring it out. From what a couple guys who I know would give me good info say the factory MAF meter will compensate fairly well for what Im doing and dialing it in by myself wouldnt be too difficult. Im pretty sure your car is speed density isnt it?
Charlie did some flow testing to check the numbers again. They went 241 stock and 251/171 with just a bowl blend! Now we know why Chad uses these for Super Stockers. As far as iron heads go, I really like these Darts. 251 for just blending the bowls is pretty awesome and there is plenty more to do. Right now they are CC'ing at 172cc out of the box. You gotta understand, this whole time I have been stressing about not using the small port Vortec Bowties, as that was the only other head I wanted to run... Turns out I am way better off with these Dart Iron Eagles. Right ports, right bolt pattern, good chamber, good flow, nice manufacturing and the exhaust port wont give me any fits with headers.
About the only gripe so far is the 67cc combustion chamber size, which will probably get a little bigger as they get some work but we'll see.
Yes, I have a real 1992 Firehawk. Car #005. Purchased the car in Germany 5 years ago. It was in rough shape (relative to most other 92 Hawks). Runs but not well yet. Want to learn from your experience here with the tuner. I'm not going to put an aftermarket control computer in the car.
Yes, I have a real 1992 Firehawk. Car #005. Purchased the car in Germany 5 years ago. It was in rough shape (relative to most other 92 Hawks). Runs but not well yet. Want to learn from your experience here with the tuner. I'm not going to put an aftermarket control computer in the car.
Freshened up
I wouldn’t either. The stock ECM has some problems but it’s not lacking some things others do. It’s good enough IMO for an NA deal.
04-18-2024, 04:26 PM
