2 heads better than 1 - power porting E7TE iron.

[David Vizard]

Those 289 heads are capable of making 450 +on the right engine.

Thats for sure - in fact I would say that 475 is on as I have been there.
DV

[David Vizard]

To put this in prospective try and find an aftermarket set of heads at any price that will bump the power to this extent!! You won’t but we will look at some of the best just for the sake of comparisons.
DV

I honestly believe you guys have done some great work! However, please check out this segment of a SBF cylinder head shootout that was published several years ago in MM&FF. The link is below. Wayback Machine is the only way I could find it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20101212175 ... 2/A-P1.htm

Cruise to the last page of that article to look at a summary of the numbers. I'm pretty sure there are several sets which performed really well. As good as yours Mr. Vizard and Charlie? Perhaps but nobody will know for sure considering dyno time is so expensive, no two dynos are the same, etc...

qikgts,

Good call here. I now recall reading this article when it was published. Richard Holdener - who wrote this piece does some steller work with articles like this.

I am really strapped for time here so I wonder if someone can go through this feature and make a chart of the gains seen. With that we will make the best of a comparison as we can allowing for the test engines bigger cam.

DV

[RevTheory]

A ~70 hp gain on such a modest engine combo by applying some real know-how to old iron is quite impressive.

[Carnut1]

A ~70 hp gain on such a modest engine combo by applying some real know-how to old iron is quite impressive.

While we were changing heads Jack said," You know if we just fixed the quench we can get another 25hp!"
Makes me wish we did and did some timing runs on DV, Charlie E7 heads. Thanks, Charlie

[David Vizard]

Moving on to the next set of heads in our test.
These are the E7TE heads modified by John Rossello of RBJ Racing.

Conceptually the porting on these heads followed a much different approach to the one Chalie and I did. Our heads werre very much directed to finding all that was possible from a stock casting. Often that takes as many as 3-4 castings to start with to get just two usable ones.

Johns approach here was to see what these heads could produce following two approach avenues. First find all the 'easy air' and second be conservative with the metal removal so as to minimize scrapping the casting. By applying both these concepts john was able to take out a lot of the cost of doing these heads but that in no way made them a cheap buy which once again emphasizes the far greater value of going with aluminum aftermarket heads. Just for the record should you want a set of heads like this then they would cost, from john, about $1700 ready to run.

I want to emphasize that John put in a great deal of work into these heads. Work that I might add was top notch in quality. Also John was sure enough of his capabilities here to put his work on public display or, to put it another way, to put his money where his mouth is. Whatever these heads sell for will go to Terry to offset the expenses of running these tests. Even though I get a really big discount from TWPE the shear number of hours involved still add up to a hefty bill.

OK dyno results first:-

Johns heads were modified to take a stud mounted rocker so prior to pulling off the DV/CS heads we set a new baseline by dynoing our super modified heads with a set of stock ratio Scorpion rockers.

The torque and power curves are as shown below. As you can see though the stock ratio Scorpions did give more they were only a few HP up on stock. And before I get a whole load of posts about the use of higher ratio rockers - yes I do know what the results would be.

Next post:- John's heads Vs stock and our super heads.

[Carnut1]

Above two graphs are DV-CS E7 Heads stock rockers vs. Scorpion 1.6 ratio roller rockers both at 34 degrees advance. Thanks, Charlie

[Carnut1]

Above two graphs are DV-CS E7 Heads stock rockers vs. Scorpion 1.6 ratio roller rockers both at 34 degrees advance. Thanks, Charlie

I was asked if I thought hp would go up with the roller rockers. My guess was 8hp peak. Thanks, Charlie

[Stan Weiss]

Not really an apples to apples comparison.

I think DV made a poor choice of words there.

The Holley's picked up 71 hp compared to the E7's in that test. Baseline to results.

I'd say it's like comparing a Granny Smith to a Crispin. Feel free to disagree.

Know I'm not hatin' on anyone.

However, NOBODY should ever say "You won't" unless it's true that NOBODY can't. Simply, I prefer to not deal in absolutes.

So DV and Charlie took an old iron head and produce as good a results with less cam as redesigned head casting.

Stan

Flow_Wednesday_November_14_2018_10_15_56.jpg

[qikgts]

So DV and Charlie took an old iron head and produce as good a results with less cam as redesigned head casting.

Stan

They sure did and I also never said it wasn't impressive!

[David Vizard]

So DV and Charlie took an old iron head and produce as good a results with less cam as redesigned head casting.

Stan

They sure did and I also never said it wasn't impressive!

qikgts

thanks for the thumbs up here.
I think I have fumbled my way through the confusion. I thought you had my post and Stan's confused but it turn out it was me that was confused!!!!!!

DV

[qikgts]

qikgts

thanks for the thumbs up here.
I think I have fumbled my way through the confusion. I thought you had my post and Stan's confused but it turn out it was me that was confused!!!!!!

DV

No problem Sir. I know what you guys (yourself, Charlie and John Rossello) accomplished with those E7's is a big deal and all of you should be proud of it! No shade thrown from me or anyone that I can tell.

However, just to be clear, with my initial post I wanted to convey that there ARE aftermarket aluminium castings with similar chamber volume as stock E7's which are capable of picking up the same amount of power as these worked E7's.

I felt your (DV) choice of words...:

To put this in prospective try and find an aftermarket set of heads at any price that will bump the power to this extent!!
DV

...was an absolute statement which I didn't think was fair or accurate. I knew of one particular test where contrary info to this was demonstrated and I shared it.

Here is the chart summarizing the results from the Group 1 portion of the extensive article/series.

[Stan Weiss]

So DV and Charlie took an old iron head and produce as good a results with less cam as redesigned head casting.

Stan

They sure did and I also never said it wasn't impressive!

No you didn't. My point was it is hard enough to compare the heads tested on the same short block and same dyno let alone a different short block and dyno. How to quantify the difference from the test you posted? As an example the AFR 165 made more peak and average HP and torque then the Holley you used, but the AFR also had 0.9:1 more Compression.

Stan

[David Vizard]

qikgts

Got it!

Went through the gains and you are right. On this test the heads produced and increase as per the following with some noticeably above the 70 hp increase on Charlie and my heads.:-

Stock B/L 306 hp
GT40-P +30 HP
World jnr +45 HP
GT-40 +47 HP
Holley 17 +71 HP
Canfield +65 HP
Edelbrock +79 HP
Brodix +69 HP
AFR 165 +90 HP

I am going to re-read that article and see if the baseline engine had any obvious advantages other than a bigger cam.

And as it happens when I did a head test like this the AFR's where top of my list closely followed by Dart and RHS.

DV

[qikgts]

I'm excited to see the next batch of results!

[Carnut1]

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=49585&start=60&hilit=Gt40x+heafs
Thread on development of gt 40 aluminum heads DV and Andy. Thanks, Charlie