E Head vs 516 iron dyno test

Rob R

Rob R

Well-known member
Well we had a big discussion [smilie=k: here about what would make more hp...box stock 88cc E heads (with better springs and retainers) or ported to the max 516's...
It's really not a fair comparison because the 516's are closed chamber and the E heads are the 88 cc verity...
The engine is a well built 446 with flat top J.E's and a [EMAIL="245@50"]245@50[/EMAIL] flat tappet cam..The intake is a box stock Performer RPM with a 750 BLP carb...
The 516's are ported and massaged to the max and best intake port flowed 280 cfm with a 2.14 intake valve and the ex is 200 cfm with a 1.88 ex valve...the intake is a Holley strip dominator that has been ported and matched to the 516 heads with a 1" spacer...
Anyone care to guess ???
I'll throw out one tid bit...the Strip Dominator made 15 more hp when switched with the perf rpm...nothing else...same carb (though it was lean)

what do you figure



.
 
I'm lousy at guessing hp but what you gots on the costs?
I'd guess the e heads are less than half the labor on the 516's. Just a guess though.
 
The costs are through the roof on the 516's...you could buy 3 sets of E Heads for what's in these...of course the $$$ to hp is very high and not for the everyday person unless you paid what this fellow paid for them which is way less than E heads....so he's the Man:p...

it made 553 hp and 568 ft lbs about 25 hp and 40 ft lbs over the alum heads...the one note to this is we had to up the fuel to 110 because the light was flashing (detonation)

my main concern with this test was to rattle the seats and bowls on the iron heads to be able to check for any cracking because of the extensive porting...pressure testing can only tell you there no leak now but a 8 trips to 6500 will tell you if there's going to be a problem...
 
XL...

those are your heads...:banana:
The engine is Kevins...it came in for a quick hone because he rattled the rings with a 250 shot of N20...it leaked down fine but the oil rings must of lost some tension.It would smoke a little when he got on and off the throtal...
I needed an engine to run your heads ...get some heat cycles through them and pound on the seats to make sure everything in the bowls will be fine...(there's A LOT OF PORTING done to these heads) and you can never be comfortable enough when your talking about this amount of porting...
 
Impressive numbers, Rob, particularly out of a commonly-discarded head.

However, I would like to point out that not only did you give up compression with the E-heads, aluminum is also less thermally efficient and can only really be fairly compared with a point or more higher compression than a comparable iron head. Realistically, the aluminum heads were probably 2 points or more disadvantaged on the compression.

To me, a far more interesting comparison would be small-chamber Edelbrock heads versus a 906, both ported to similar configurations, where the iron head is generating a point less compression than the Es to equalize for the lost thermal efficiency of the lighter metal. I'm betting it would be a close outcome.

As I've said in the past, I'm not the biggest fan of E-heads in the first place--at least where max power is concerned--so I'm not defending them or touting them. I'm just playing devil's advocate here in pointing out the physics angle to the comparison.
 
Jass...

I know it wasn't a fair compairson...my main concern was just to stress the bowls on the 516's so I could check for cracks that might have formed after being run...
The other thing is the 516's have a fairly big chamber because I unshrouded the valves...about .200 on the ex and .250 on the intake so the chamber up in volume 6-8 cc's...
Hell...a full radius valve job and a back cut on the E Heads would have evened up the playing field...
 
Dr.Jass said:
As I've said in the past, I'm not the biggest fan of E-heads in the first place--at least where max power is concerned--so I'm not defending them or touting them.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with you on the oriignal RPM head, but I recently had an opportunity to watch over a large inch low deck build with the Victor heads, and was more than surprised at the power output of that cylinder head, and it was out of the box. With porting, the head has some very serious potential. The nice part is that the exhaust ports aren't raised signifigantly, so most off the shelf headers should still work. Sorry for the tangent.

Rob, those are excellent numbers for a cylinder head of very old technology. Impressive indeed.:bravo: By the way, you have a pm.
 
While the Victors may be a significant improvement (I haven't checked them out yet), Edelbrock isn't a player in the maximum horsepower wars. Their general adherence to the stock valvetrain configuration limits their ability to play in the Indy and B-1 leagues.
 
Dear Gurus. My daughter and I got a '69 GTX basket case. It has a '78 motor home 440. A friend of mine gave me a set of 516 heads, and I have valves and springs from some 906 heads. I want the closed chamber 516's to bring up the compression on the '78 motor. Besides the valves and bowls, what's the difference in port sizes between the 906's and 516's? What needs to be done to the 516's to get the most out of the '78 low compression, cast crank motor? Would it be worth while to put a roller cam in? The last BB build, I put in a Crower "Hot Street Beast" and I liked it real well for the wide power band. Car has automatic now.
 
I agree on the eddy head stock configuration limitation. I think they have done a really good job of getting lots of flow out of that configuration with the victor-jr heads, but I'll still stick with my 345 cc 440-1's when it comes to making power. Of course, the dollar/hp ratio is much in favor of the eddy's in that comparison....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

SiteLock

SiteLock
Back
Top