This doesn't really surprise me. It has always been my understanding that the best strategy for a stock Mopar head like this is to just clean up the transitions from machined area like right under the valve seat, clean up casting flash, bumps and aberrations, generally just clean and smooth out and call it good. After watching various things about this build and other pro porters' videos lately, I'm curious to see what I _actually_ did on my daily-driver 360 heads that I put 2.02 intakes, etc. in back when I was a teenager, 25+ years ago, considering I basically had no idea what I was doing other than trying to "think like the air." It was only something like the 3rd or 4th set of heads I'd ever even touched with a grinder, I'm sure they would be much, *much* better overall if I had known then what I know now, but they haven't even been off that engine in over 20 years! 😄 Thank you for sharing your knowledge with the rest of us mere mortals, my friend!! 👍👍
Back in the mid '70s I read an interview with Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins (Chevy Pro Stock Vega) and he said he would quit if he had to use the exhaust port design on the small block MOPAR. Then came the W2 head and made the sbm competitive again.
This must be some ultimate challenge for a DIY guy, because the head flows 223cfm @ .50 using a 1,78in stock valve and averaging 389 fps over the short turn without backing up the flow at higher lift? Not to mention meat in the middle of the lift curve. 👍😁 Excellent work and thanks for sharing this with us, -juhana
Thank you so much for your work on these heads. I have been needing to learn about these heads before I make any changes to my 302 castings and your videos are very educational to me. Your donation and dedication to this project for charity is also very much appreciated.
Thanks for bringing us along for this adventure, we get to learn along the way too! I’ve read DV and Grumps books and that is the bulk of my education on porting. Seeing some flowbench time is totally cool!
How in the heck did I wind up here on this channel? I have done porting on slant 6 heads. I did a "peanut plug" slant head for a friend's work van. I open up the intakes to the gasket size. Don't touch the intake manifold so there might be a little anti-reversion effect (?) I have a set of 302's out there in my shop that I have done some work on. I screwed up the chamber on one. Never did finish them. I was working them to bolt on my 360 in my '79 Maxivan. Again, a work truck with a Comp RV cam. Offenhauser Dual Port intake running either a Thermoquad, or a Mopar Q-jet. It was a 318 intake as Offy quit building the 360 model. I don't drive the van any more. I don't need a work truck. Subscribed!
OK, per DV and Andy now say they are putting in new guides. With new guides, they are thinking LS valves (lighter & used, so cheap) so factor that into your thinking
Call it Good Charles. Only have to make 325 Hp. Too many Engineering Faults to obtain 500-675 Hp. It was designed as a Taxi Cab Engine the 318 Dodge 302 heads. Still have the low cfm 2-bbl issue on top yet.
@@servediocylinderheads Terrible those Center Exhaust ports how the short side goes into the Dog Legs on the 318 302. Like a Sharp Stick in the Eye ouch ! Wonder what AMC did they used Dog Leg Center Exhaust ports. Pontiac D-ports iron the Center ports actually have Dog legs about 2 inches in from end where Exhaust manifolds bolt up but Smooth transitions. No crap in the way. Nice and even short side radius on all 4 too.
@@servediocylinderheads It may not show up on the flow bench any of yours Charles but changing the TULIP shape of exhaust valves can lead to more power with the engine running. Point of Aim into the Dog Leg center ports. If Nailheads exhaust valves find some old Exhaust valves with Tulip back shapes. Used in later Smog era Pontiac D-ports like 4X and 6X heads 1973-1979. 1.66" valve face diameters they are. Pontiac aimed exhaust flow out that way.
What is it DV says? Let the air go where it wants to go not where you think it should go. Looks like that is what happened here. Since you can’t fix that short side turn maybe filling the bottom to decrease the radius and increase the velocity where the port wants to work would be a winner.
Ben Alameda talks a lot about the height of the short side, and why he doesn't like laying the short side back a lot of the time. As he puts it, height is your friend in that area. He often puts bigger valves in just so he can increase the height of the short side. I enjoy watching you Charlie, because you explain your thought process as you do the job. Regards Greg
Those heads are pretty awful to use as performance heads. The ports and valves are tiny, and the exhaust shapes don't make much sense. A set of AAWJ heads with a 1.94" or opened to 2.02"(small block notch required on 318) could make more than 1 hp/ci without even a performance valve job. If Mopar had taken the "X" head and simply scaled it down to something suitable for a 318 it would have been so much less work. I'm just glad it's you working on that old iron rather than me. I'd probably put some Trick flows on it(with bore notch) and call it done.
Oh, I totally get it. They are so tight it is a real problem working the coc intake port wall due to no clearance at the pinch. The core shift and casting thickness is all over the place too. A nice aluminum casting would be cake compared to these. Thanks
D.V. does that shape because he has low air speed at the bottom of the pinch and gives a better ssr shape. My airspeed is very high on the bottom of the pinch.
Thanks for the consistent updates; this has been a fun series to watch / keep up to date on. Question: since you mentioned these heads will be used for the project / porting competition, do you think you’ll be putting bigger 1.88-valves, using epoxy on the intake ports and sleeving the pushrod pinch to get all to an edge on DV??? I’m basically asking if they will be getting an “all-out” treatment approach, since the goal posts have shifted on DV’s end on using aftermarket valves / parts, and this no longer being a practice or development head?
Charles Servideo, it seems like I remember u saying in a previous video that the intake ports should be flowing 223 based on the math. What multiplier or constant did u use in conjunction with the mcsa or csa to come up with that # or did u do the math a different way?
No, the pinch mcs would flow that. (Length x width)- corner radius Take that number multiply by 146 That will give your theoretical flow of the pinch. If you do a good job you can exceed that.
If the porter could make a 3d printed copy of a port they wanted to develop ,say a single cylinder mold, and cut, mold and develop the model in a softer easier material to work would really make things less difficult
that port is too small for a burr finish. You've got a boundary layer at play that is effectively reducing critical CSA where you need it most. Don't believe me? hit those known ticklish areas with a 80 grit roll, and watch what happens. Your velocity probe tell you that, if you listen.
I dont know what is the tickle area, but i think its amazing that the flow didnt drop say somewhere at 0.40-0.45 lift and went 0.50 like nothing through out the burr finish port and dead beaver teeths.. when its two in the morning and the alarm is in four and half hours.. -juhana
When they said mission impossible I think they were referring to the port job I watched the development.ment A lot of baby steps looks like you are finally figuring them out
Well if the heads don't work then the small manifold and carb work even worse. I have done a fair amount of manifold testing and unless the intake actually flows more than the head by a good amount the total flow will drop quite a bit.
Laurence this is where you see really great great thinkers work there magic really!! Most of the time if people want to go fast they start spending tons of money and they do go faster but if they where to understand how everything works from the air coming into the engine until it leaves the exhaust they could spend that same amount of money and go even faster plus paint the car buy some drag slicks and take the family out for steaks lol... To maximize the total you have to start from your weakest and add everything you can to make the weakest work efficiently.
Do you think the 421 that you did the intake for DV would work in a street car cruising at 2000 rpm at 60 mph. 69 camaro? Or maybe I should go with a 23 deg. Head and a dual plane and maybe just work for 600hp
@@dondotterer24 That would be a nasty street engine. It does eat 25% race fuel which is pricey. Add that to 5 mpg and cost of new tires. Some guys say anything could be streetable.
@@servediocylinderheads Thanks. I was thinking about that.I would like to drive it with A/C in the summer. And don't want to put a nice car into the wall if something happens. LOL
@@dondotterer24 A/c will require a smaller cam and probably a dual plane intake to make it nice on the street. I have done single planes and a/c but it doesn't work as well. A/c systems take a bunch of power and they are on at idle.
I think DV isn’t thinking about this project clearly if he’s going to compare a quench vs non-quench head….if he wants the compression as high as he stated in an earlier video, there’s no way the same piston crown shape will work for both heads, unless he’s OK with one combo having almost 2-points higher compression than the other at the same quench distance.
It appears to me that you're flowing your heads with no Clay to make a "Funnel" on the port gasket surface. Looks also like only half of thr Port that you say is good is only flowing at 50% in the bowl, that can be from not making a Velocity Funnel at the port mouth as I stated before. Also what did you cut those valves seats with a Dead Beavers teeth?
This doesn't really surprise me. It has always been my understanding that the best strategy for a stock Mopar head like this is to just clean up the transitions from machined area like right under the valve seat, clean up casting flash, bumps and aberrations, generally just clean and smooth out and call it good. After watching various things about this build and other pro porters' videos lately, I'm curious to see what I _actually_ did on my daily-driver 360 heads that I put 2.02 intakes, etc. in back when I was a teenager, 25+ years ago, considering I basically had no idea what I was doing other than trying to "think like the air." It was only something like the 3rd or 4th set of heads I'd ever even touched with a grinder, I'm sure they would be much, *much* better overall if I had known then what I know now, but they haven't even been off that engine in over 20 years! 😄
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with the rest of us mere mortals, my friend!! 👍👍
Heads still on after 20 years you obviously did a pretty good job or they would have had issues.
Back in the mid '70s I read an interview with Bill "Grumpy" Jenkins (Chevy Pro Stock Vega) and he said he would quit if he had to use the exhaust port design on the small block MOPAR. Then came the W2 head and made the sbm competitive again.
This must be some ultimate challenge for a DIY guy, because the head flows 223cfm @ .50 using a 1,78in stock valve and averaging 389 fps over the short turn without backing up the flow at higher lift? Not to mention meat in the middle of the lift curve. 👍😁
Excellent work and thanks for sharing this with us,
-juhana
Man the exhaust is horrific, But yur making something out of nothing.
Thank you so much for your work on these heads. I have been needing to learn about these heads before I make any changes to my 302 castings and your videos are very educational to me. Your donation and dedication to this project for charity is also very much appreciated.
Thanks for bringing us along for this adventure, we get to learn along the way too!
I’ve read DV and Grumps books and that is the bulk of my education on porting. Seeing some flowbench time is totally cool!
Glad you like it!
How in the heck did I wind up here on this channel? I have done porting on slant 6 heads. I did a "peanut plug" slant head for a friend's work van. I open up the intakes to the gasket size. Don't touch the intake manifold so there might be a little anti-reversion effect (?) I have a set of 302's out there in my shop that I have done some work on. I screwed up the chamber on one. Never did finish them. I was working them to bolt on my 360 in my '79 Maxivan. Again, a work truck with a Comp RV cam. Offenhauser Dual Port intake running either a Thermoquad, or a Mopar Q-jet. It was a 318 intake as Offy quit building the 360 model. I don't drive the van any more. I don't need a work truck. Subscribed!
Welcome! I hope you like it here.
OK, per DV and Andy now say they are putting in new guides. With new guides, they are thinking LS valves (lighter & used, so cheap) so factor that into your thinking
I'm not sure everyone appreciates that this is all with a 1.78 valve. What do you think they would flow with a 2.02?
I would think more, especially in the midrange.
Call it Good Charles. Only have to make 325 Hp. Too many Engineering Faults to obtain 500-675 Hp.
It was designed as a Taxi Cab Engine the 318 Dodge 302 heads.
Still have the low cfm 2-bbl issue on top yet.
It is still a 1.78"/1.5" combo so I feel it is good for what it is.
@@servediocylinderheads Terrible those Center Exhaust ports how the short side goes into the Dog Legs on the 318 302. Like a Sharp Stick in the Eye ouch !
Wonder what AMC did they used Dog Leg Center Exhaust ports.
Pontiac D-ports iron the Center ports actually have Dog legs about 2 inches in from end where Exhaust manifolds bolt up but Smooth transitions. No crap in the way. Nice and even short side radius on all 4 too.
@@brracing7861 Really, what were they thinking?
@@servediocylinderheads It may not show up on the flow bench any of yours Charles but changing the TULIP shape of exhaust valves can lead to more power with the engine running. Point of Aim into the Dog Leg center ports. If Nailheads exhaust valves find some old Exhaust valves with Tulip back shapes. Used in later Smog era Pontiac D-ports like 4X and 6X heads 1973-1979. 1.66" valve face diameters they are.
Pontiac aimed exhaust flow out that way.
@@servediocylinderheads Be one of those deals engine has to he tested running power torque gains or not. Improved E/I ratio running engine
What is it DV says? Let the air go where it wants to go not where you think it should go. Looks like that is what happened here. Since you can’t fix that short side turn maybe filling the bottom to decrease the radius and increase the velocity where the port wants to work would be a winner.
Ben Alameda talks a lot about the height of the short side, and why he doesn't like laying the short side back a lot of the time. As he puts it, height is your friend in that area. He often puts bigger valves in just so he can increase the height of the short side. I enjoy watching you Charlie, because you explain your thought process as you do the job. Regards Greg
Thanks, Ben has some good videos.
Ssr height is linked to where you want your torque.
@@servediocylinderheads So then would a lower SSR be better for lower RPM and a lower lift cam?
@@briantayes2418 Usually high rpm stuff likes the lower ssr.
Dam I'd like to see what you can do to a set of 3800 V6 heads
Never touched a set.
Those heads are pretty awful to use as performance heads. The ports and valves are tiny, and the exhaust shapes don't make much sense. A set of AAWJ heads with a 1.94" or opened to 2.02"(small block notch required on 318) could make more than 1 hp/ci without even a performance valve job. If Mopar had taken the "X" head and simply scaled it down to something suitable for a 318 it would have been so much less work.
I'm just glad it's you working on that old iron rather than me. I'd probably put some Trick flows on it(with bore notch) and call it done.
Oh, I totally get it. They are so tight it is a real problem working the coc intake port wall due to no clearance at the pinch. The core shift and casting thickness is all over the place too. A nice aluminum casting would be cake compared to these. Thanks
Right on
excellent camera focus and manner of communicating is great
I am trying for better production. Thanks
Nice, nice work my friend, hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas.
Merry Christmas Rowdy! And thanks!
👍💪
👍
Would the Trapezoid shaped port help?
D.V. does that shape because he has low air speed at the bottom of the pinch and gives a better ssr shape. My airspeed is very high on the bottom of the pinch.
Leave that port alone and rough in the 3rd to compare to the 1st one.
Good idea, doing that now actually
Thanks for the consistent updates; this has been a fun series to watch / keep up to date on. Question: since you mentioned these heads will be used for the project / porting competition, do you think you’ll be putting bigger 1.88-valves, using epoxy on the intake ports and sleeving the pushrod pinch to get all to an edge on DV??? I’m basically asking if they will be getting an “all-out” treatment approach, since the goal posts have shifted on DV’s end on using aftermarket valves / parts, and this no longer being a practice or development head?
I will know more after I speak to D.V.
Charles Servideo, it seems like I remember u saying in a previous video that the intake ports should be flowing 223 based on the math. What multiplier or constant did u use in conjunction with the mcsa or csa to come up with that # or did u do the math a different way?
No, the pinch mcs would flow that. (Length x width)- corner radius
Take that number multiply by 146
That will give your theoretical flow of the pinch. If you do a good job you can exceed that.
If the porter could make a 3d printed copy of a port they wanted to develop ,say a single cylinder mold, and cut, mold and develop the model in a softer easier material to work would really make things less difficult
That would be great but real casting thickness issues and core shift would make it very difficult to use that developed plastic port into a casting.
Find a set of w2's and compare the ports. May give you some ideas perhaps?
None in stock.
Merry Christmas Mr. Charles. Thank you for sharing!!!!!
Merry Christmas 302!
that port is too small for a burr finish. You've got a boundary layer at play that is effectively reducing critical CSA where you need it most. Don't believe me? hit those known ticklish areas with a 80 grit roll, and watch what happens. Your velocity probe tell you that, if you listen.
Yep I agree.
I have found the same thing.
I dont know what is the tickle area, but i think its amazing that the flow didnt drop say somewhere at 0.40-0.45 lift and went 0.50 like nothing through out the burr finish port and dead beaver teeths..
when its two in the morning and the alarm is in four and half hours..
-juhana
what treatment did you give the exhaust air injector bosses
Went over them. Flat
how much cam lift would you give these heads ?
I wish I could test at higher lifts and answer you.
When they said mission impossible I think they were referring to the port job I watched the development.ment
A lot of baby steps looks like you are finally figuring them out
Well if the heads don't work then the small manifold and carb work even worse. I have done a fair amount of manifold testing and unless the intake actually flows more than the head by a good amount the total flow will drop quite a bit.
Laurence this is where you see really great great thinkers work there magic really!! Most of the time if people want to go fast they start spending tons of money and they do go faster but if they where to understand how everything works from the air coming into the engine until it leaves the exhaust they could spend that same amount of money and go even faster plus paint the car buy some drag slicks and take the family out for steaks lol... To maximize the total you have to start from your weakest and add everything you can to make the weakest work efficiently.
@@rowdyreviews6530 The weak link is usually the intake valve seat.
Do you think the 421 that you did the intake for DV would work in a street car cruising at 2000 rpm at 60 mph. 69 camaro? Or maybe I should go with a 23 deg. Head and a dual plane and maybe just work for 600hp
23 degree can make that power. But 18 degree is easier as far as airflow.
@@servediocylinderheads Thanks Charlie. Just wondering if that 18deg. Engine on DVs video would be too radical for my application.
@@dondotterer24 That would be a nasty street engine. It does eat 25% race fuel which is pricey. Add that to 5 mpg and cost of new tires. Some guys say anything could be streetable.
@@servediocylinderheads Thanks. I was thinking about that.I would like to drive it with A/C in the summer. And don't want to put a nice car into the wall if something happens. LOL
@@dondotterer24 A/c will require a smaller cam and probably a dual plane intake to make it nice on the street. I have done single planes and a/c but it doesn't work as well. A/c systems take a bunch of power and they are on at idle.
Charlie are these the actual heads going on the motor for DV or this is just research and development for him?
Last conversation with D.V. he told me to do em up and he would do an quench head vs. Non quench head dyno.
The R.&D. is for me to learn. Ages ago our R.&D. Was race em and destroy em.
I think DV isn’t thinking about this project clearly if he’s going to compare a quench vs non-quench head….if he wants the compression as high as he stated in an earlier video, there’s no way the same piston crown shape will work for both heads, unless he’s OK with one combo having almost 2-points higher compression than the other at the same quench distance.
@@ericschumacher5189 You never know what he is thinking.
These heads are just for testing. Came off his old shelf stock.
It appears to me that you're flowing your heads with no Clay to make a "Funnel" on the port gasket surface. Looks also like only half of thr Port that you say is good is only flowing at 50% in the bowl, that can be from not making a Velocity Funnel at the port mouth as I stated before. Also what did you cut those valves seats with a Dead Beavers teeth?
No, I use a clay radius on Dodge stuff.
Yes, dead beaver teeth.