Bang for buck heads, Vortec-results?
03-16-2008, 02:01 AM
#1
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Bang for buck heads, Vortec-results? (pics added)
Who is using them, any before and after #s, feedback?
Porting a set right now (906 casting) and they apear to be a pretty decent head for production. I would think these could make awesome street torque.
Thoughts?
Btw, porting cast iron is the suck.
Porting a set right now (906 casting) and they apear to be a pretty decent head for production. I would think these could make awesome street torque.
Thoughts?
Btw, porting cast iron is the suck.
Last edited by cv67; 03-16-2008 at 09:43 PM.
03-16-2008, 02:04 AM
#2
Burning Brakes
03-16-2008, 11:20 AM
#3
Instructor
Member Since: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vortec heads
They are great for the money and a mild build up. Once you start machining for springs and old intake bolt pattern and screw in studs as I remember then the cost starts going up. When ported I think I remember the flow getting up in the high 200's on the intake side. Fairly slim valve guide boss, tall port with pretty good shape to begin with.
03-16-2008, 01:11 PM
#4
Drifting
Vortecs are good heads for a street motor, (except for the intake thing). They'll flow around 239-240 CFM stock, and have a good combustion chamber. If you have any good info on porting them, I'd appreciate it. All I've ever heard was other than cleaning up the castings, normal porting proceedures actually hurt flow on these heads. I sorta remember of one writeup; years ago, where some "good" porter improved the exhaust a bit, but couldn't pick up much on the intake.
03-16-2008, 01:56 PM
#5
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Heard the same thing. Seems the main part to concentrate is on the bowls, there is a lot of room for improvement where the bowl meets the seat, necking down the guide boss/shaping. Leaving the intake alone, doing a full port on the exhaust.
Take a look behind the guide boss and look at a set of AFRs same spot, see anything similar?
I would think these would work well on a long tube runner setup
Take a look behind the guide boss and look at a set of AFRs same spot, see anything similar?
I would think these would work well on a long tube runner setup
03-16-2008, 02:01 PM
#6
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Found a little feedback on these.
From another forum I frequent
I was pmed by someone else there that claimed 260/270 on a full port.
You can run 32 degress of timing which tells me the chamber is pretty efficient.
http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56505
From another forum I frequent
Between 250~260CFM @.550" is about the most I see. Usually I get high 230's to low 240's with out too much work. That's GM #906, or 062 factory heads with a stock 1.94" valve. It all depends on the casting, some flow better than others. I have seen 240 from an untouched head before. I have a set right now that won't go past 232CFM.
__________________
__________________
You can run 32 degress of timing which tells me the chamber is pretty efficient.
http://www.nastyz28.com/forum/showthread.php?t=56505
Last edited by cv67; 03-16-2008 at 02:04 PM.
03-16-2008, 06:52 PM
#7
Drifting
Nice link...31 pages! I'd forgotten they had pressed in studs; I'm not too keen on them with a hi-performance motor. I think they're 64CC chambers too; something else to be considered.
Last edited by Curveit; 03-17-2008 at 02:14 AM.
03-16-2008, 06:56 PM
#8
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
One down, one to go.
Both bowls done, exhaust completely ported intake minor clean up, thats it. Wish I had a bench.
Both bowls done, exhaust completely ported intake minor clean up, thats it. Wish I had a bench.
03-16-2008, 09:35 PM
#9
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Did a quickie (light) cleanup of flash on the intake runners, removed some sharp edges in chamber, thats it. Wish I had more time to spend on them.
This was only half.....
This was only half.....
Last edited by cv67; 03-16-2008 at 09:44 PM.
03-16-2008, 10:07 PM
#11
Team Owner
03-16-2008, 10:20 PM
#12
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
I meant flow bench. But yeah, that too.
03-16-2008, 10:45 PM
#14
Melting Slicks
Man my old Dart irons on a previous set up were only rated at 240 cfm on a .500 lift. I feel like I've ripped off if I could have stole a pair of 906 Vortec heads from the local scrap yard. Its unfreakinbelievale on how well the Vortecs can flow with itty bitty baby valves considering these Darts flowed the same with a 2.05/1.60 valve set up...
Are those spark plug holes angled or straight? I might consider finding a set of 906 heads if they clear headers and can somehow adapt my current Edelbrock RPM intake to fit. Irons heads might be a bit hard on 11:1 compression street motors though. What are the heads gonna be on?
Oh and by the way, I bet porting iron heads sucks. I'm sure it will take a long time to open those ports.
Are those spark plug holes angled or straight? I might consider finding a set of 906 heads if they clear headers and can somehow adapt my current Edelbrock RPM intake to fit. Irons heads might be a bit hard on 11:1 compression street motors though. What are the heads gonna be on?
Oh and by the way, I bet porting iron heads sucks. I'm sure it will take a long time to open those ports.
03-16-2008, 10:59 PM
#15
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Straight plugs.Does take longer than aluminum but not too bad unless youre trying to remove a lot of material. These dont really need it though. Whats bad is the dust, dont want to breathe that stuff, its bad news.
03-16-2008, 11:23 PM
#17
Team Owner
03-16-2008, 11:37 PM
#18
Burning Brakes
9.5:1 350cid, 500cfm tuned port, assumes long tubes and mufflers, with a smallish hydraulic cam
same 9.5:1, same 500cfm tuned port, same exhaust...this time with a small/mild roller cam
gloves off. 10.5:1 383cid, 850cfm single plane intake, slightly larger roller cam, long tubes and no mufflers
03-16-2008, 11:42 PM
#20
Team Owner
Thread Starter
Member Since: Oct 2004
Location: altered state
Posts: 81,242
Received 3,043 Likes
on
2,602 Posts
St. Jude Donor '05
Ah, HAH! There we go, nice curve.
Thanks for doing that.
You guys that run them, just blocking off the EGR on the manifold?
Thanks for doing that.
gloves off. 10.5:1 383cid, 850cfm single plane intake, slightly larger roller cam, long tubes and no mufflers
You guys that run them, just blocking off the EGR on the manifold?
Last edited by cv67; 03-17-2008 at 01:47 AM.