Welcome to V8Buick.com.
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 220
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,099

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Perf View Post
    Folks,
    I have read about these test on and off for some time in regards to this TA 350 manifold vs stock test. This intake was tested to death when we first released it. When it was in design I went as far as have flow boxes made from the cores before the hard tooling was made. This was to compare results to which ever stock intake we had at the time. They were made out of plaster, still have them. Ed Mosler designed the intake in 1982-83, still have all the pencil drawings which are pretty cool. Jim Bell was on board to help with testing. On the wagon it was worth 3 tenths. Car went from 12.60's to 12.30's. From what I know today some of this could be from my driving habits back then. But I do not remember any results of no improvement like I've seen here in the past years. The 350 intake is sold to all level of builds and the feed back we receive has been positive. Every test, every engine will provide some different information.
    I do agree that if a intake can provide enough air to satisfy the engine a aftermarket intake may show no improvement. The other thing I remember is when Ed Mosler did his flow testing of the intake he said it picked up the air flow of the head. Which he indicated then that it was because of a problem with the head. At the time he also indicated that would be a plus, but not making it right. I cannot tell you which head it was tested on, what the valve job looked like and so on. Jim Bell also had positive results when tested on Forrest Thornburg's 350 Skyhawk. The intake was tested by GSCA members back then as well. I do not want to get into a debate over this, just wanted to share some history. If we didn't see positive results, and those of you who know me, you know I would have gone back and fixed it.

    On another note, I once talked with Jim Poston way back when about the S-Divider intake, about its lack of performance, which he acknowledged. In the end Jim said to me, "Why should I spend the money to fix it, when I will sell 100 intakes a year either way".

    Well, that's not me folks, I would have fixed it.

    One more thing. The 350 heads have been designed around 1.940" & 1.550" valves. If I remember correctly a 2.050" intake can be installed. We never tested with that size intake valve. We also increased the the spring installed height by using longer valves. The stock 350 is 5.0" long I believe. Were going to use 5.15" which is the length of the 455. So the 2.0" performance intake valves we stock can be used. The exhaust can go to 1.600" but at this time we feel it will not be necessary. I have a bunch of 1.625" 455 exhaust that I may have machined into 1.550" or 1.600". I excited to see what everyone will do with these heads over time.

    Thank you for sharing, Mike. Very insightful and valuable.

    Good things are on the horizon!

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,099

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by grimmjeeper View Post
    I know that I have been quietly watching this thread, wondering if these aluminum heads would be good for my target build of low/midrange power for driving a heavy Jeep Wagoneer with maybe a trailer behind it. Sure, the reduced weight of aluminum heads and TA dual plane manifold is never a bad thing. But I'm excited to see how these heads flow and how much they would improve overall performance. And while my focus is on midrange power, there's nothing wrong with seeing the torque curve stay up well into higher RPMs. I may not use it all the time but I wouldn't be disappointed.

    Not knowing all the details yet of these aluminum heads, I too will go out on a limb and say that 'mid range' use with these heads will be quite doable. Depending on what the numbers end up being (and where), one could employ other tricks to make great power between 2500-5500 RPM. Much can be done with a roller cam to put the powerband where you want it, along with proper intake CFM (less dependent on 'oversized' carbs--but also able to accommodate larger CFMs at lower RPMs--fuel injection, anyone?) and exhaust velocity suitable for the powerband your application needs.

    While the torque peak may be higher, it will also be wider, giving great torque and a usable powerband throughout the entire intended operating range. Much of this will be dependent on the combination of parts and how well you make them work together, along with the tuning required to bring it all together.

    While these heads will surely be adequate for higher RPMs and big power (which is the main intent), intake and exhaust tricks along with valve timing events will play a huge role in where the power ends up. With the heads no longer being the limiting factor, will give more versatility with engine builds using other key components. They will move more air even at lower-mid RPMs especially when roller cams are employed. With low-mid scavenging tricks (small tube primaries--and 'small' may need to be redefined when compared to the old iron heads), wider roller lobe profiles making better use of air momentum, increased dynamic stroke and displacement with earlier closing events (all the aforementioned improving/maintaining good intake velocity), should see substantial torque improvements in these RPM ranges.

    "Game changer" indeed, Buick 350's using these heads (for mid range intent) will need to be built a bit differently than traditional 350's using the old iron heads, which is actually a good thing when the goal is to maximize power output.

    Even if you had to make the cam the limiting factor instead of building it around the heads being such, as long as there is good (better than iron heads) CFM numbers at lower lifts, would make these heads superior to iron heads even with the use of much milder cams...

    I might even be so bold as to say that using the TA dual plane intake and a large 2 barrel adapter with a low-lift roller cam to maintain good velocity within the lower section of the valve curtain, along with small primary tube headers, would make some seriously good grunt when comparing a similarly equipped Buick 350 with the old iron 2 barrel intake and iron heads.

    Nuts you say? Perhaps. It certainly wouldn't be the most powerful combination you could put together using these heads, but that's not the point. The point is would it be better than the iron counterparts? I think yes.

    Yeah I know. "Two barrel Gary" at it again. Well that may be, but it just goes to show what the wide range of applications these heads could be used for. At least I didn't suggest the Federal Mogul cam...

    If nothing else, I'm good for a few laughs.


    Gary

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    1,614

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Gary

    Don't forget to add the fact that the new heads are closed chamber.
    The combination of quench and aluminum allows for a higher DCR.

    We are always running up against the Buick 350 DCR restriction when looking to build low end power with an early closing intake valve.
    This will help in that regard.

    Considering the Buick 350 has a small bore, add good quench with an aluminum head, DCRs at 8:1 or more should be doable.

    I'm really glad to see you adding roller cams back into your repertoire.

    Paul

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Farmer View Post
    Not knowing all the details yet of these aluminum heads, I too will go out on a limb and say that 'mid range' use with these heads will be quite doable. Depending on what the numbers end up being (and where), one could employ other tricks to make great power between 2500-5500 RPM. Much can be done with a roller cam to put the powerband where you want it, along with proper intake CFM (less dependent on 'oversized' carbs--but also able to accommodate larger CFMs at lower RPMs--fuel injection, anyone?) and exhaust velocity suitable for the powerband your application needs.

    While the torque peak may be higher, it will also be wider, giving great torque and a usable powerband throughout the entire intended operating range. Much of this will be dependent on the combination of parts and how well you make them work together, along with the tuning required to bring it all together.

    While these heads will surely be adequate for higher RPMs and big power (which is the main intent), intake and exhaust tricks along with valve timing events will play a huge role in where the power ends up. With the heads no longer being the limiting factor, will give more versatility with engine builds using other key components. They will move more air even at lower-mid RPMs especially when roller cams are employed. With low-mid scavenging tricks (small tube primaries--and 'small' may need to be redefined when compared to the old iron heads), wider roller lobe profiles making better use of air momentum, increased dynamic stroke and displacement with earlier closing events (all the aforementioned improving/maintaining good intake velocity), should see substantial torque improvements in these RPM ranges.

    "Game changer" indeed, Buick 350's using these heads (for mid range intent) will need to be built a bit differently than traditional 350's using the old iron heads, which is actually a good thing when the goal is to maximize power output.

    Even if you had to make the cam the limiting factor instead of building it around the heads being such, as long as there is good (better than iron heads) CFM numbers at lower lifts, would make these heads superior to iron heads even with the use of much milder cams...

    I might even be so bold as to say that using the TA dual plane intake and a large 2 barrel adapter with a low-lift roller cam to maintain good velocity within the lower section of the valve curtain, along with small primary tube headers, would make some seriously good grunt when comparing a similarly equipped Buick 350 with the old iron 2 barrel intake and iron heads.

    Nuts you say? Perhaps. It certainly wouldn't be the most powerful combination you could put together using these heads, but that's not the point. The point is would it be better than the iron counterparts? I think yes.

    Yeah I know. "Two barrel Gary" at it again. Well that may be, but it just goes to show what the wide range of applications these heads could be used for. At least I didn't suggest the Federal Mogul cam...

    If nothing else, I'm good for a few laughs.


    Gary
    I'm really tempted to be a guinea pig in my rebuild and try out these heads. I'd love to explore the potential of these heads and see what I can get out of the engine.

    I'm looking at throttle body fuel injection. Dealing with a carburetor over the passes can be a challenge. I have the Holley Avenger TBI on the AMC 401 in my truck though I don't have a lot of miles on it to be able to really know how great it is.

    On the other hand, I do know of a carburetor that does really well with elevation. The AMC V8's in the Jeeps came with a carburetor in the 80's that had an altitude compensation circuit that works really well. i.e. I know people who went from the low lands in Texas all the way over Engineer Pass in Colorado (over 13,000 feet) and never once had to adjust the carburetor. It's a 500 CFM 2bbl that's set up for an AMC 360 V8 (close enough to a Buick 350 that only minor tweaking would be needed). There's only one problem. It's a Motorcraft. Would the Buick gods strike me dead if I tried to bolt a Ferd carburetor to a Buick 350? It uses the standard Holley/Rochester 2bbl mounting pattern so it should be a drop-on fit with a cheap adapter. And it's stupid simple to work on. Besides, it would let me keep the Jeep "electronics free"...
    Roy

    1969 Jeep Wagoneer: Buick 350/TH400/D20/D27/D44 for now.
    1986 Jeep J-10 Pickup: AMC 401/700R4/NP208/D44/D60FF
    2012 Jeep Wrangler: 3.6 Pentastar/NSG370/4 speed Atlas/D30/D44

    Try out my handy gear ratio calculator: http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html

    If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    15,353

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by grimmjeeper View Post
    I'm really tempted to be a guinea pig in my rebuild and try out these heads. I'd love to explore the potential of these heads and see what I can get out of the engine.

    I'm looking at throttle body fuel injection. Dealing with a carburetor over the passes can be a challenge. I have the Holley Avenger TBI on the AMC 401 in my truck though I don't have a lot of miles on it to be able to really know how great it is.

    On the other hand, I do know of a carburetor that does really well with elevation. The AMC V8's in the Jeeps came with a carburetor in the 80's that had an altitude compensation circuit that works really well. i.e. I know people who went from the low lands in Texas all the way over Engineer Pass in Colorado (over 13,000 feet) and never once had to adjust the carburetor. It's a 500 CFM 2bbl that's set up for an AMC 360 V8 (close enough to a Buick 350 that only minor tweaking would be needed). There's only one problem. It's a Motorcraft. Would the Buick gods strike me dead if I tried to bolt a Ferd carburetor to a Buick 350? It uses the standard Holley/Rochester 2bbl mounting pattern so it should be a drop-on fit with a cheap adapter. And it's stupid simple to work on. Besides, it would let me keep the Jeep "electronics free"...
    Sure try it out, I am just happy you are sticking with a Buick 350.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark Turbo 350 street/strip

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,099

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by pmuller9 View Post
    Gary

    Don't forget to add the fact that the new heads are closed chamber.
    The combination of quench and aluminum allows for a higher DCR.

    We are always running up against the Buick 350 DCR restriction when looking to build low end power with an early closing intake valve.
    This will help in that regard.

    Considering the Buick 350 has a small bore, add good quench with an aluminum head, DCRs at 8:1 or more should be doable.

    I'm really glad to see you adding roller cams back into your repertoire.

    Paul

    Good call! Totally forgot that one.

    Closed chamber AND smaller bore/combustion chamber will permit much higher compression ratios for even more power (aside from the fact that aluminum heat dissipation would have to be considered--another .5-.75 point to compensate).

    Those custom pistons with quench platforms will be highly desired with these heads.

    These heads will transform the Buick 350 in more ways than one! I'm pretty stoked about these heads.

    I'd say DCR's of 8.5-9:1 would be doable on 93 octane, with 7.0-7.5:1 doable on 87! Maybe not the best placement, but is doable because Chevy small blocks with larger combustion chambers and proper quench are doing it.

    Offset ground cranks using those Nascar take-out rods Derek talks about not costing too much more would compliment a build with these heads nicely. Get some more cubes along with higher RPM potential...

    Hot damn there's a lot of potential here!

    P.S.--roller is the only way to go with these heads. Leave flat tappet to the iron.


    Gary

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,099

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by grimmjeeper View Post
    I'm really tempted to be a guinea pig in my rebuild and try out these heads. I'd love to explore the potential of these heads and see what I can get out of the engine.

    I'm looking at throttle body fuel injection. Dealing with a carburetor over the passes can be a challenge. I have the Holley Avenger TBI on the AMC 401 in my truck though I don't have a lot of miles on it to be able to really know how great it is.

    On the other hand, I do know of a carburetor that does really well with elevation. The AMC V8's in the Jeeps came with a carburetor in the 80's that had an altitude compensation circuit that works really well. i.e. I know people who went from the low lands in Texas all the way over Engineer Pass in Colorado (over 13,000 feet) and never once had to adjust the carburetor. It's a 500 CFM 2bbl that's set up for an AMC 360 V8 (close enough to a Buick 350 that only minor tweaking would be needed). There's only one problem. It's a Motorcraft. Would the Buick gods strike me dead if I tried to bolt a Ferd carburetor to a Buick 350? It uses the standard Holley/Rochester 2bbl mounting pattern so it should be a drop-on fit with a cheap adapter. And it's stupid simple to work on. Besides, it would let me keep the Jeep "electronics free"...

    I've been over that pass (I think it was that one...maybe another one) in Colorado...in a Volvo 240 wagon lol. Well, mostly. Had to turn around when the terrain became too rocky. Lost a few chunks of tread out of those poor tires. That volvo was a tank!

    I think that carb would do just fine. May have to do some adjustment/tuning with the higher power output, but it's made out of the same alloys on this planet all the rest of the stuff is, so no god vengeance to worry about.

    The TBI is a great idea too. I think if I had one of those, I'd try to get that set up on it just for the added stability for elevation and atmospheric conditions, along with better mileage and power.

    I think those TBI systems are 500 CFM too; not sure if they all are or if there were some with more CFM for larger CID engines. Either way, should work like a mule.

    Don't worry about being a 'guinea pig' on the heads. No such thing, as TA stands behind their work/products and these heads will outperform their iron counterparts in every way.

    These heads should bring the Buick 350 closer in line to the LS engines (notice I said 'closer') and that's saying a lot. Plus it's a BUICK.


    Gary

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Aurora, CO
    Posts
    39

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by Gary Farmer View Post
    I've been over that pass (I think it was that one...maybe another one) in Colorado...in a Volvo 240 wagon lol. Well, mostly. Had to turn around when the terrain became too rocky. Lost a few chunks of tread out of those poor tires. That volvo was a tank!

    I think that carb would do just fine. May have to do some adjustment/tuning with the higher power output, but it's made out of the same alloys on this planet all the rest of the stuff is, so no god vengeance to worry about.

    The TBI is a great idea too. I think if I had one of those, I'd try to get that set up on it just for the added stability for elevation and atmospheric conditions, along with better mileage and power.

    I think those TBI systems are 500 CFM too; not sure if they all are or if there were some with more CFM for larger CID engines. Either way, should work like a mule.

    Don't worry about being a 'guinea pig' on the heads. No such thing, as TA stands behind their work/products and these heads will outperform their iron counterparts in every way.

    These heads should bring the Buick 350 closer in line to the LS engines (notice I said 'closer') and that's saying a lot. Plus it's a BUICK.


    Gary
    The Avenger TBI is a 4bbl with, I think, 750 or 900 CFM throttle bodies. The old 2bbl GM units and early Holly pro-jection were 670 I want to say.
    Roy

    1969 Jeep Wagoneer: Buick 350/TH400/D20/D27/D44 for now.
    1986 Jeep J-10 Pickup: AMC 401/700R4/NP208/D44/D60FF
    2012 Jeep Wrangler: 3.6 Pentastar/NSG370/4 speed Atlas/D30/D44

    Try out my handy gear ratio calculator: http://www.grimmjeeper.com/gears.html

    If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,099

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Ah ok. I was thinking about the TBI on GMs for some reason.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Clarkston, MI
    Posts
    1,508

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Comparing a Buick 350 to an LS engine is a stretch even for you Gary. LOL

    You have to wonder if the chamber size is going to remain around 55 and become a closed chamber how is that possible? Only one way. The valves are moving deeper into the heads. That will make the short side radius even tighter on the intake side when maintaining the stock intake manifold location.
    Also from the rough casting looks like the exhaust ports are moving up. As I've posted before changing the valve angle and spreading them a little will allow bigger valves. Valve size is the biggest cork in the stock iron heads. The ports themselves are fine.

    Stop worrying about shrouding the valves. Just notch the block like a BB Chevy. They make plenty of power.
    Steve Caruso
    Maker of reproduction N-25 exhaust hangers, chrome rally wheels, 68-72 Firewall grommet, MBM brake parts dealer.

    72 GSX clone. Pure Stock 350 13.45@ 100mph
    72 Stage 1 SunCoupe In process
    70 GS race car In process
    50 Studebaker truck
    96 Roadmaster Collectors Edition wagon
    77 Chrysler Cordoba

    Former rides,
    71 Riviera GS
    82 Regal woodie wagon

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    ellington, ct
    Posts
    1,057

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    [QUOTE=sean Buick 76;2570317]
    Quote Originally Posted by gsjohnny1 View Post

    1. Yes Bill has the engine now with cracked block.
    2. Scott Shafiroff never heard of his racing engines?
    3. Because when the big debacle came out about the custom eagle Buick 350 crank that was made Dcott and Eagle had a falling out leading to the time when all the threads were deleted about the bill mah engine. Scott and eagle later made good and I was able to get permission from bill to re post the thread as I had saved it before it was deleted.
    4. I am from the west coast and I'm 100% honest

    5. I am not making anything up, bill mah and Scott verify this information. The worst part is that the reason that Eagle and Scott got into it is because one of the eagle guys did a custom crank an exact copy of the stock 350 crank but it never was officially designed and logged in the system. The under the table custom crank is the issue. Them when I find out that Eagle made a crankshaft for a 350 I called them and tried to order it. They told me that no Buick 350 crank has ever been made by eagle so I left them my number and told them to call me back. They called back and said that there was no records at all of this crank being made...

    Here is where the issue came up:

    I posted on this forum about how this all happened and then a few weeks later a Buick 350 fanatic called Eagle and really tore into them with telling them a bunch of trash and yelling at the reps on the phone.

    Soon Scott and Eagle were in a bad standing... The fact that eagle was a huge supplier to him effected his business until they mended the relationship. This is why Scott does not want anything to do with the Buick.

    http://www.v8buick.com/showthread.ph...highlight=1021

    I know who Scott Shafiroff Racing engines. fellow buick guy from way back on the island, marty jablonski, works for scott in the parts dept. just saw him sunday. he has never mentioned it. but it could have been before he started there.
    Since you brought it up, where/how did edelbrock come into the story?

    if you are going to post stuff, don't leave blanks or don't post it at all. it just makes matters worse. besides, I flunked mind reading and x-ray classes while I was in school. damn lousy teachers.

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    15,353

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    [QUOTE=gsjohnny1;2570885]
    Quote Originally Posted by sean Buick 76 View Post


    I know who Scott Shafiroff Racing engines. fellow buick guy from way back on the island, marty jablonski, works for scott in the parts dept. just saw him sunday. he has never mentioned it. but it could have been before he started there.
    Since you brought it up, where/how did edelbrock come into the story?

    if you are going to post stuff, don't leave blanks or don't post it at all. it just makes matters worse. besides, I flunked mind reading and x-ray classes while I was in school. damn lousy teachers.
    You need to back off I spoke the truth.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark Turbo 350 street/strip

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,582

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    You have to wonder if the chamber size is going to remain around 55 and become a closed chamber how is that possible? Only one way. The valves are moving deeper into the heads. That will make the short side radius even tighter on the intake side when maintaining the stock intake manifold location.
    Also from the rough casting looks like the exhaust ports are moving up. As I've posted before changing the valve angle and spreading them a little will allow bigger valves. Valve size is the biggest cork in the stock iron heads. The ports themselves are fine.
    Going from a 10* to a 13* angle would relax the severity of the short turn a bit. Occasional mod on BB Mopar as well.
    Seems like a smart move. The other direction (raising the intake port location) would make the head a mile high.
    How the "too short" short turn is handled on many other aftermarket heads is to raise a hill up from the floor (dead area) and carry a larger radius over the top of it. The flow will keep fairly fast over that with the idea to stay tight to it and not ski-jump off or separate in some way. This can be the fastest part of the port when you probe it.

    The apparent sinking of the intake seat might not be sunk at all, a quench pad would accomplish the same effect without moving the depth any.
    Leaving material around the valve rather than the flow simply emptying into the chamber past the seat is a porter's dream, for many reasons.

    Are there many 270-280 cfm SBB intake ports already out there that the major restriction is the valve size?
    I would doubt that.
    I do agree that the changes listed so far are good moves and common sense from the perspective of a somewhat clean sheet.
    The head bolt pattern and intake opening leave LOTS of play area in between, where the most improvement would be.
    (Sorry Underdog, politely disagreeing with you there... )

    I'm only commenting in the general sense as I didn't design this head.

    Gary, just pointing out that when referring to SBC's, the aftermarket and vortec shaped chambers behave very differently than the 'ol wedge shaped chambers.
    Trapped compression ratios are not comparable nor are build strategies, including dis-similar rpm ranges applied to such (assuming similar materials, of course).

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Portland, Or
    Posts
    25

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    [QUOTEI might even be so bold as to say that using the TA dual plane intake and a large 2 barrel adapter with a low-lift roller cam to maintain good velocity within the lower section of the valve curtain, along with small primary tube headers, would make some seriously good grunt when comparing a similarly equipped Buick 350 with the old iron 2 barrel intake and iron heads.][/QUOTE]
    this is precisely my setup, only the carb/adapter is a GM TBI for the throttle body, and the TA manifold drilled for 450cc injectors
    from 2 Mitsubishi Eclipses, and the Burton Machine twin turbo kit instead of headers. With proper tuning, overdrive, EGR (yes, I'm running EGR. No, I'm not crazy, OK maybe a little) and aerodynamic improvements, I might get 25mpg highway! At least that's my goal. I'm downright giddy!
    1965 Thunderbird Limited Edition Special Landau
    Work in progress...

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by 8ad-f85 View Post
    Going from a 10* to a 13* angle would relax the severity of the short turn a bit. Occasional mod on BB Mopar as well.
    Seems like a smart move. The other direction (raising the intake port location) would make the head a mile high.
    How the "too short" short turn is handled on many other aftermarket heads is to raise a hill up from the floor (dead area) and carry a larger radius over the top of it. The flow will keep fairly fast over that with the idea to stay tight to it and not ski-jump off or separate in some way. This can be the fastest part of the port when you probe it.

    The apparent sinking of the intake seat might not be sunk at all, a quench pad would accomplish the same effect without moving the depth any.
    Leaving material around the valve rather than the flow simply emptying into the chamber past the seat is a porter's dream, for many reasons.

    Are there many 270-280 cfm SBB intake ports already out there that the major restriction is the valve size?
    I would doubt that.
    I do agree that the changes listed so far are good moves and common sense from the perspective of a somewhat clean sheet.
    The head bolt pattern and intake opening leave LOTS of play area in between, where the most improvement would be.
    (Sorry Underdog, politely disagreeing with you there... )

    I'm only commenting in the general sense as I didn't design this head.

    Gary, just pointing out that when referring to SBC's, the aftermarket and vortec shaped chambers behave very differently than the 'ol wedge shaped chambers.
    Trapped compression ratios are not comparable nor are build strategies, including dis-similar rpm ranges applied to such (assuming similar materials, of course).
    This works ok if the bowl is deep enough to add area over the shoprt turn
    If not,then as you say excessive air speed shown using a pitot will / can cause that dreaded jet engine sound on the bench
    Power will surely suffer in more max effort apps
    84 Mustang/Hertz Rent-a-Car
    416CI 9.20@147 On Radials N/A in 5900 FT-D/A 2014 LIMITED CHAMP
    Powered by my 8 year olds engine program
    73 Buick Apollo Stage 1 455 F.A.S.T. Project
    Combinations that are well thought out and the finances spent where they are best utilized, is why some people's cars run faster, last longer and run with less headaches that those who pick and choose their parts by a poll...After all, there are tons of internet racers but only a select few who actually have results.

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,582

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    This works ok if the bowl is deep enough to add area over the short turn
    If not,then as you say excessive air speed shown using a pitot will / can cause that dreaded jet engine sound on the bench
    Power will surely suffer in more max effort apps
    Certainly!
    That area is pretty easy to change in a new casting. No need for water to be around the intake side of a head
    One might expect a near clean sheet to think of the basics.
    Mike's already said he has used flow boxes in the past and I wouldn't think this aspect would get past him.
    I didn't overlook that either, but I can't type up a dissertation every time I post

    The area we are referring to is often the minimum CSA and would be major concern for anyone redesigning a performance minded head, being that this section of head is largely responsible for the peak torque rpm at whatever short block it's marketed towards.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Clarksville, TN
    Posts
    2,099

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by UNDERDOG350 View Post
    Comparing a Buick 350 to an LS engine is a stretch even for you Gary. LOL

    That is the difference between the two words "close" and "closer".

    Not much of a stretch at all.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    15,353

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    The 5.3 and Buick 350 are close in bore size, head port shape etc... The LS has a better block but not by too much and if we add the girdle we have a better foundation.

    I am all for both the LS and Buick 350 they are both great designs.
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark Turbo 350 street/strip

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by 8ad-f85 View Post
    Certainly!
    That area is pretty easy to change in a new casting. No need for water to be around the intake side of a head
    One might expect a near clean sheet to think of the basics.
    Mike's already said he has used flow boxes in the past and I wouldn't think this aspect would get past him.
    I didn't overlook that either, but I can't type up a dissertation every time I post

    The area we are referring to is often the minimum CSA and would be major concern for anyone redesigning a performance minded head, being that this section of head is largely responsible for the peak torque rpm at whatever short block it's marketed towards.
    But you cant add CSA to a SBB
    It will ruin the magic Buick super torque mojo lol

    I like your thinking though
    84 Mustang/Hertz Rent-a-Car
    416CI 9.20@147 On Radials N/A in 5900 FT-D/A 2014 LIMITED CHAMP
    Powered by my 8 year olds engine program
    73 Buick Apollo Stage 1 455 F.A.S.T. Project
    Combinations that are well thought out and the finances spent where they are best utilized, is why some people's cars run faster, last longer and run with less headaches that those who pick and choose their parts by a poll...After all, there are tons of internet racers but only a select few who actually have results.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,582

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Who said anything about going overboard with the CSA?
    Weren't longer valves previously mentioned?
    The only reason for that being valve placement and installed spring height?
    Who's saying the stock SBB port is perfectly ideal and cannot be improved upon both powerwise or for driveability?
    Isn't correlating CSA and port characteristics relating to the cylinder and it's use the bare minimum one would consider?
    That's decades old.
    (I do know of a couple aftermarket heads that were OEM copies but with thicker walls. There was zero consideration for performance improvements)

    Why would it not be a natural to explore moving things around between the opening of the head and the valve?
    Simply easing the path to the valve evens out velocities as probed around the port, which gives some leeway to what works as far as other component selection.
    It makes the engine more tolerant of cam choices...it cures most 'evils' , lol.
    Being that part of the SBB magic is velocity and swirl, and that swirl is very effective proportionate to rpm/cylinder size ratios, it stands to reason that starting with a port that shows a slightly slower swirl energy (and better stability) would still retain it's low end magic and even extend it's usefulness to rpm and size ranges not intended by the factory castings, with the potential to suit a more serious use .
    (at least the as-cast condition and the final form of castings sometimes being the way they are for manufacturing ease, rather than the best net shape...)

    I can't figure out if you think TA hasn't thought of the very basics or if you are throwing entry level cylinder head talk at me for fun.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    378

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    what is C S A?

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    MI.
    Posts
    2,913

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by stk3171 View Post
    what is C S A?
    Cross - Section - Area .







    Derek
    64 Skylark,401 Nailhead,ST400,3.23:1Posi
    64 Skylark,305Vortec sbc,700R4,12blt Posi 3.73,low 14s. A sbb 300 stroker planned for it.
    72 Skylark Convert. in progress, Not yet assembled 455 .020 over,70 heads with stage1 valves,gasket matched and bowl blended,transmission to be determined.
    65 Chevy Impala,4,400lbs,383sbc,700R4,3.07posi,1.80 60' foot time low 13s @101mph,15mpg city,24mpg highway

  23. #98
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Edmonton Alberta
    Posts
    15,353

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Some cool info:

    __________________________________________________ __________________________________
    My book called Small Block Buick Performance covering the V6, 215, 300, 340, and Buick 350 engines will be released soon.

    http://www.v8buick.com/forumdisplay....rformance-Book
    __________________________________________________ ____________________________
    1970 Buick Skylark Turbo 350 street/strip

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    471

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Quote Originally Posted by 8ad-f85 View Post
    Who said anything about going overboard with the CSA?
    Weren't longer valves previously mentioned?
    The only reason for that being valve placement and installed spring height?
    Who's saying the stock SBB port is perfectly ideal and cannot be improved upon both powerwise or for driveability?
    Isn't correlating CSA and port characteristics relating to the cylinder and it's use the bare minimum one would consider?
    That's decades old.
    (I do know of a couple aftermarket heads that were OEM copies but with thicker walls. There was zero consideration for performance improvements)

    Why would it not be a natural to explore moving things around between the opening of the head and the valve?
    Simply easing the path to the valve evens out velocities as probed around the port, which gives some leeway to what works as far as other component selection.
    It makes the engine more tolerant of cam choices...it cures most 'evils' , lol.
    Being that part of the SBB magic is velocity and swirl, and that swirl is very effective proportionate to rpm/cylinder size ratios, it stands to reason that starting with a port that shows a slightly slower swirl energy (and better stability) would still retain it's low end magic and even extend it's usefulness to rpm and size ranges not intended by the factory castings, with the potential to suit a more serious use .
    (at least the as-cast condition and the final form of castings sometimes being the way they are for manufacturing ease, rather than the best net shape...)

    I can't figure out if you think TA hasn't thought of the very basics or if you are throwing entry level cylinder head talk at me for fun.
    I was being facetious is all about Buick folks adding any port volume
    As u eluded to it takes cross section to move the peaks in a hi hp piece
    My thought is too small pushrod area and large bowls are a compromise
    I guess its where you want your min csa to be is all

    The issue lies in the fact that a well ported OEM cast head will go 260cfm
    How come there aren't more 500 hp 350 Sb's???
    The new heads will surely be an update but wont be the magic pill either

    Thanks to the Folks at T/A for stepping up as usual
    84 Mustang/Hertz Rent-a-Car
    416CI 9.20@147 On Radials N/A in 5900 FT-D/A 2014 LIMITED CHAMP
    Powered by my 8 year olds engine program
    73 Buick Apollo Stage 1 455 F.A.S.T. Project
    Combinations that are well thought out and the finances spent where they are best utilized, is why some people's cars run faster, last longer and run with less headaches that those who pick and choose their parts by a poll...After all, there are tons of internet racers but only a select few who actually have results.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,582

    Default Re: ***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

    Haha!
    100% agreed.
    People seem to have the misunderstanding that CFM's control the powerband. Cams too.
    It's all about airspeed.
    My post was meant as a sarcastic response to yours as well.
    No malice intended.

 

 
Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Alum 350 head update!
    By sean Buick 76 in forum Small Block Tech
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 02-09-2016, 03:23 PM
  2. 1964 Buick 300 V8 with alum heads and intake MINNESOTA Craigs List $400
    By Roadmaster49 in forum Cars and Parts For Sale Leads
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-14-2013, 10:26 AM
  3. 64 Buick 300 w/alum heads
    By GStage1 in forum Cars and Parts For Sale Leads
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-09-2009, 10:19 PM
  4. New Alum heads
    By Buick455truck in forum Buick FAQ
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 05-20-2004, 01:10 AM
  5. Alum Heads??
    By Madcat455 in forum Small Block Tech
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-06-2002, 11:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to top