408 options.
That's just it... There is no fair comparison between cathedral port and rectangle port heads. They are two entirely different design philosophies.
If you wanted to stay with stock head castings, you're comparing a 210cc runner to a 260cc runner, a 2.00" intake valve to a 2.165" valve (respectively).
I think it's just a matter of personal preference, and people will adamantly argue both sides, but trying to draw a comparison is fruitless.
If you wanted to stay with stock head castings, you're comparing a 210cc runner to a 260cc runner, a 2.00" intake valve to a 2.165" valve (respectively).
I think it's just a matter of personal preference, and people will adamantly argue both sides, but trying to draw a comparison is fruitless.
TECH Addict
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 2,189
Likes: 123
From: Portland, Oregon
Both styles of heads can be made to suit just about any situation, but I think the cathedral port heads do come with a handicap in terms of maximum potential due to their inherently smaller intake runners (given that GM never used cathedral port heads on anything larger than six liters).
Even BIG aftermarket cathedral port heads are only 250cc intake runners. That's still less than a stock ls3 head.
I like the cathedral port heads, personally, but that's not saying they are in any way superior.
Even BIG aftermarket cathedral port heads are only 250cc intake runners. That's still less than a stock ls3 head.
I like the cathedral port heads, personally, but that's not saying they are in any way superior.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 965
Likes: 0
From: Joliet Illinois
After going over and over and over everything. I change my mind daily.
What does everyone think of these heads? I would pair with a ls3 intake for now.
http://texas-speed.com/p-1179-prc-ls...ted-heads.aspx
What does everyone think of these heads? I would pair with a ls3 intake for now.
http://texas-speed.com/p-1179-prc-ls...ted-heads.aspx
