ando76

Luke's corty mate. The bloke you spoke to at the all Ford day.

Who needs a high port crossflow head. One of our heads, 254@.050 flat tappet, four barrel in a sedan. Untuned and only second time at the track. Told you it would be fast chestnut. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

very cool.

Ok yeah it was funny. The news from Ayr was not so funny tho. If it's true we are all going to look silly.

Not offended at all and not interested in arguing. Just providing clarification. There were 3 screen shots of the 3 intake port flow results from the test head if you recall. One was 'stock port window' one was slightly larger than stock and then there was the 'biggest port window' and biggest port. I've not shown a photo of that port at all. The 'cotton wool' port was THOR junior which we did after the 3 test ports and went on the speedway engine. Therefore it had stock port window sizing and a 1.86 valve but still went 240 odd. The crossflow porting thread has a chronological order of events.

Nah. That's the comment that's readily able to be seen on the business page. I have nothing to hide.

As Rob pointed out, others have tried it and they didn't achieve results as good as the cylinder head in the below flow bench screen shot. No high port, no massive port window. Just smarts from 2 passionate people. Others have achieved higher flow and good on them. Reality is that no one will pay for this head. There is only a very small number of enthusiasts who are pursuing making power from these things. If you can do the work yourself - or a prepared to pay the price to someone who can - the sky is the limit Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Sounds like you need a good/ different mechanic.

Good gains. Might be his second only x flow head but clearly he is no amateur. At the end of the day they are all just ports and require similar things. If you have a flow bench, time on your hands, some skill and a customer willing to pay for that time - well you will get results. Looking forward to seeing how it goes on the car.

If your 91 is as good as the stuff we get over here then go for the 96. I have a specific gravity fuel tester and I can tell you some of the stuff is crazy bad. Not what you need if your pushing the envelope

Boosted engines require greater spring control due to a number of factors. Increased cylinder pressure, Increased ex temps being just a few. You also want to look at hardened locks and good collets for serious boosted engines that see decent rpm.

See don't be fooled by the double spring debacle. Modern bee hive springs have a much better rate and control over the valve thru the complete range of movement, compared to rock ape old 80's thinking double spring garbage. Now you can get a great single beehive spring that will comfortably handle .620" lift and big duration and roller profiles. Its all about matching the spring to the cam, head flow figures with manifold attached and cam type. Get it wrong and you will waste mechanical effort at best, at worse you will wipe lobs and generally have an underperforming s..tbox. Cam manufactures guidleines are close enough for mild to medium performance applications.

My exact point. If you follow the guidelines and target 12.8 you could burn a cylinder with the Redline. Modify it to 12.0 and watch 1&6 in particular and you would be on a winner. But if your spending the coin to have a nice cruiser, why not spend the coin on a manifold with even flow-balance. It's not all about making hp&torque although that is good. It's about making a happy engine. Happy engines make more power and torque and use less fuel to do it. That makes for a good cruiser in my opinion. The gain most experience when going to triples is largely due to even cylinder fill.

What ignition inputs does it need. Cylinder position and a home like most - and what type of signal (magnetic - magnetic, hall - magnetic or Hall - hall). Cylinder poisition is easy enough using Hall. home could be a little difficult. Clarko and I have just finished the crossflow specific crank trigger kits. Uses msd magnets and sensors.

Yeah. There are a lot of redline manifolds out there, because once upon a time, that's all you could get. Then blokes like Ian 'moo' Moody (ultraflow) and Ray Hall started to make manifolds that actually flowed close to even and weren't just a spot to put a carb on. The new Aussiespeed 2 barrel manifold is an awesome bit of kit. Very even cylinder fill. Yes they are expensive, but hey quality costs and spending hours on a dyno chasing your tail is also expensive. If the budget isn't there I'd be searching for a second hand ultraflow. I may be playing devils advocate here but I see problems ahead with getting the tune right with the Redline. Why? Because the ecu will be getting a read on the mixture and will then trim to suit and it may well trim to the point that it burns the lean (better flowing) cylinders. I've spent a considerable amount of time carb tuning these engines and doing plug reads and egt monitoring to try and get the best possible tune when you don't have ideal flow balance between runners. Its not uncommon to run different plug heat ranges, richer afr target than you normally would go just to try and keep cylinders from running lean. I've known builders to run less comp on certain cylinders to address manifold imbalance. Of course I'm usually dealing with engines that spend most of their lives between 3500&6500. It sounds like this engine will not be given a hard time so it may all work out fine. Id be keeping a close eye on plugs all the same. The algorithms and target afr's might just be too smart for their own good. Having said that if you can get into it and tell it to target 12.0 instead of 12.8 then it should all be fine.

They are a massive improvement over the stock junk. I had a before and after graph on my business page but the link was with post img and now I can't retrieve it. From memory it was 20hp gain and about 40 ft lbs. when you say poor fuel over there - what octane rating is it? Just remember an alloy head will take more comp than an iron head and the c2 has a very good chamber shape (being a closed chamber) and is less prone to pinging. If you have to keep the comp below 10:1 and your looking at a cam upgrade, make sure you look at the cam grinders recommendations. Camtech cams are good at providing recommended comp. If you follow their guidelines you won't go wrong.

The boys are all over it. Below is a little 2 barrel engine I recently did for a customer in Brissy. 500 Holley - Ultraflow manifold. Open chamber head with 1.86in - 1.60 ex. Bowl job and basic 3 angle seat cut. Bottom end was 250/250 deal with a tighe 140t solid. 240/240@.050 and .510 lift. Comp was 11:1. It's a good street engine that makes solid torque and hp without having terrible manners. You could pair this combo back a bit and you would be at your target. The small Aussiespeed 2 barrel manifold and a 500 Holley with something in the 215@50 and around .500" would be good for a stock valve size application. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Good luck with it. Really keen to see the results of this newer system. One thing I learnt with it is don't expect it to be brilliant straight out of the box. It takes a good amount of driving to come good, but once there it should be sweet. Benefits of your system is you can get into it if you need to.

Some interesting comments there deandx. Has he ever tried a four barrel east wested? Gerg - once again you are all over it. Undefeated - I've done self tuning efi, albeit with the crude MSD (a Holley Brand) Atomic system. I swore I'd never do another one as the 'self learning' in that system was pure garbage. The algorithms they had were way off for the i6. Yes things may have improved, particularly with the Holley sniper ecu as a trained user can get in there and change parameters. But realistically why would you bother with the expense. It amazes me that people would happily lay down $1500+ dollars on a 'self learning' ecu but they wouldn't spend $450 for 2 hours of dyno tuning by a competent operator. Its just mental to me. I recently sent my customer to Zoran @ Zox performance in Brissy to have the tune cleaned up because I couldn't make it down there for some time. He paid $450 for the dyno time and he agrees that it's the best money he has ever spent. Zoran only had to go down 1 jet size from base but was able to trim the ignition curve etc etc. The car is now a jet and won't need to be touched. But hey - if you want to do it - do it. I'm just offering my experience and advice. The choice is yours.

But did they do that on a crossflow? That's my point.

Back at the flow bench this arvo with the cylinder head for HADES, the dedicated e85, 4 barrel customer engine I'm building. Pleasing results and will be a great match for the Aussiespeed 4 barrel manifold. Should make some solid numbers.

The self learning stuff I have used is not very awe inspiring, particularly if you have a decent stick and 6 cylinder. The self learning just doesn't seem to cut it. The fitech stuff works ok on v8's engines but to me I think if your looking for it to be a panacea to all your problems, I think you might be disappointed. A 6al2 programmable with map sensor input and a properly tuned 350 Holley on the new small Aussiespeed 2 barrel would shit on it in my honest opinion.

Clevo intakes cut down, chev exhausts cut down.

What was the low and mid lift figures on that 1.91" head? That's good peak flow. Where did it make that peak? Seat cut is cams basic seat cut. Valves are back cut a fraction with the standard ferrea neck down.

Went back to the flow bench today with a new port and chamber design. It was based on the stuff we learnt from doing the last 3 test ports, you know the ones that caused all the conjecture. Anyway I had a c1 head sitting here that had stainless ferrea valves (1.84&1.5) and all the guides and seats done. It just needed porting. I've had it for years and decided now was the time. Here are the results. Pretty damn impressive I must say, especially considering how small the valve is. Then have a look at the port window, yep it's stock. ZERO welding or bogging done to the port. None. Before the naysayers and the like ask, no I'm not sharing what the x section is, nor the chamber shape. Please keep in mind (as I've said numerous times) Anthony's bench flows 10cfm below name benches. That's 243cfm of flow through a 1.84 valve and a stock port window!!! Smallest port doing the biggest job. Look at the mid lift figures. Solid as a rock. p.s. Please ignore the valve size on the test sheet. Anthony didn't change it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk