Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads?
10-21-2002, 08:35 AM
#41
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? Wow - I hadn't seen the second page untill now! this is really cool! there are a lot of good ideas out there, Paul J was right on target with the testing criteria. Fixture bore size, exh. tube, intake manifold are all variables that have to be in place to achieve accurate resluts. I really don't know how to address the independant sample issue. I don't know of too many customers that would pull off their heads and send them in, just so we can have this comparison. I do like the idea of everybody sending their parts to SAM. Judson is a top notch guy, and we can count on him for honest results, and no bias. Maybe to eliminate the temptation to "tweak" a set, we could have a "no handwork" rule, ie: only blending of the valve job, no hand work in runners, ports, or chambers. Any thoughts?
Ed
Ed
10-21-2002, 10:44 AM
#42
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ed Potter @ LPE:
<strong>Wow - I hadn't seen the second page untill now! this is really cool! there are a lot of good ideas out there, Paul J was right on target with the testing criteria. Fixture bore size, exh. tube, intake manifold are all variables that have to be in place to achieve accurate resluts. I really don't know how to address the independant sample issue. I don't know of too many customers that would pull off their heads and send them in, just so we can have this comparison. I do like the idea of everybody sending their parts to SAM. Judson is a top notch guy, and we can count on him for honest results, and no bias. Maybe to eliminate the temptation to "tweak" a set, we could have a "no handwork" rule, ie: only blending of the valve job, no hand work in runners, ports, or chambers. Any thoughts?
Ed</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mr Potter,
Since there will be soo many tunners heads under one roof for a "head to head" shootout, it would be cool to get a Mag to cover it? Thanks for the compliment <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> , that 291 @ .500 was just recnetely discovered about 2-3 months ago after almost 2 years of porting, the first 290 @ .500 runner ever sat on the floor for 1 month contemplating if I should it or not, I spoke to my GOOD friend in the bussiness and went over all the flow specs with him, he talked me into trying that design. So first, I made sure it was duplicatable and that it wasn't just a Rogue runner and it wasn't, so we began to use it in production for our customers with great success. "StevieZ" has the first set we did and has yet to get on the dyno but he has posted his track times he trapped the best of 117+ at stock weight without tunning. Our S1's only flow up to .520 lift ie S1 head and are specifically designed for small cams ie Comp 218/.527 and such. If this is all CNC based testing shootout with no hand blending/porting, you can count me out, I don't have a CNC based program for any of my heads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . We port all of our heads by hand, Let me know if this is going to be a problem?
<small>[ October 21, 2002, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: JPR ]</small>
<strong>Wow - I hadn't seen the second page untill now! this is really cool! there are a lot of good ideas out there, Paul J was right on target with the testing criteria. Fixture bore size, exh. tube, intake manifold are all variables that have to be in place to achieve accurate resluts. I really don't know how to address the independant sample issue. I don't know of too many customers that would pull off their heads and send them in, just so we can have this comparison. I do like the idea of everybody sending their parts to SAM. Judson is a top notch guy, and we can count on him for honest results, and no bias. Maybe to eliminate the temptation to "tweak" a set, we could have a "no handwork" rule, ie: only blending of the valve job, no hand work in runners, ports, or chambers. Any thoughts?
Ed</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mr Potter,
Since there will be soo many tunners heads under one roof for a "head to head" shootout, it would be cool to get a Mag to cover it? Thanks for the compliment <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> , that 291 @ .500 was just recnetely discovered about 2-3 months ago after almost 2 years of porting, the first 290 @ .500 runner ever sat on the floor for 1 month contemplating if I should it or not, I spoke to my GOOD friend in the bussiness and went over all the flow specs with him, he talked me into trying that design. So first, I made sure it was duplicatable and that it wasn't just a Rogue runner and it wasn't, so we began to use it in production for our customers with great success. "StevieZ" has the first set we did and has yet to get on the dyno but he has posted his track times he trapped the best of 117+ at stock weight without tunning. Our S1's only flow up to .520 lift ie S1 head and are specifically designed for small cams ie Comp 218/.527 and such. If this is all CNC based testing shootout with no hand blending/porting, you can count me out, I don't have a CNC based program for any of my heads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . We port all of our heads by hand, Let me know if this is going to be a problem?
<small>[ October 21, 2002, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: JPR ]</small>
10-21-2002, 11:22 AM
#43
TECH Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by JPR:
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ed Potter @ LPE:
<strong>Wow - I hadn't seen the second page untill now! this is really cool! there are a lot of good ideas out there, Paul J was right on target with the testing criteria. Fixture bore size, exh. tube, intake manifold are all variables that have to be in place to achieve accurate resluts. I really don't know how to address the independant sample issue. I don't know of too many customers that would pull off their heads and send them in, just so we can have this comparison. I do like the idea of everybody sending their parts to SAM. Judson is a top notch guy, and we can count on him for honest results, and no bias. Maybe to eliminate the temptation to "tweak" a set, we could have a "no handwork" rule, ie: only blending of the valve job, no hand work in runners, ports, or chambers. Any thoughts?
Ed</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mr Potter,
Since there will be soo many tunners heads under one roof for a "head to head" shootout, it would be cool to get a Mag to cover it? Thanks for the compliment <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> , that 291 @ .500 was just recnetely discovered about 2-3 months ago after almost 2 years of porting, the first 290 @ .500 runner ever sat on the floor for 1 month contemplating if I should it or not, I spoke to my GOOD friend in the bussiness and went over all the flow specs with him, he talked me into trying that design. So first, I made sure it was duplicatable and that it wasn't just a Rogue runner and it wasn't, so we began to use it in production for our customers with great success. "StevieZ" has the first set we did and has yet to get on the dyno but he has posted his track times he trapped the best of 117+ at stock weight without tunning. Our S1's only flow up to .520 lift ie S1 head and are specifically designed for small cams ie Comp 218/.527 and such. If this is all CNC based testing shootout with no hand blending/porting, you can count me out, I don't have a CNC based program for any of my heads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . We port all of our heads by hand, Let me know if this is going to be a problem?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">WE NEED THE BEST OF THE BEST, NOT CNC'D ONLY
<strong> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Ed Potter @ LPE:
<strong>Wow - I hadn't seen the second page untill now! this is really cool! there are a lot of good ideas out there, Paul J was right on target with the testing criteria. Fixture bore size, exh. tube, intake manifold are all variables that have to be in place to achieve accurate resluts. I really don't know how to address the independant sample issue. I don't know of too many customers that would pull off their heads and send them in, just so we can have this comparison. I do like the idea of everybody sending their parts to SAM. Judson is a top notch guy, and we can count on him for honest results, and no bias. Maybe to eliminate the temptation to "tweak" a set, we could have a "no handwork" rule, ie: only blending of the valve job, no hand work in runners, ports, or chambers. Any thoughts?
Ed</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Mr Potter,
Since there will be soo many tunners heads under one roof for a "head to head" shootout, it would be cool to get a Mag to cover it? Thanks for the compliment <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> , that 291 @ .500 was just recnetely discovered about 2-3 months ago after almost 2 years of porting, the first 290 @ .500 runner ever sat on the floor for 1 month contemplating if I should it or not, I spoke to my GOOD friend in the bussiness and went over all the flow specs with him, he talked me into trying that design. So first, I made sure it was duplicatable and that it wasn't just a Rogue runner and it wasn't, so we began to use it in production for our customers with great success. "StevieZ" has the first set we did and has yet to get on the dyno but he has posted his track times he trapped the best of 117+ at stock weight without tunning. Our S1's only flow up to .520 lift ie S1 head and are specifically designed for small cams ie Comp 218/.527 and such. If this is all CNC based testing shootout with no hand blending/porting, you can count me out, I don't have a CNC based program for any of my heads <img border="0" title="" alt="[Sad]" src="gr_sad.gif" /> . We port all of our heads by hand, Let me know if this is going to be a problem?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">WE NEED THE BEST OF THE BEST, NOT CNC'D ONLY
10-21-2002, 11:36 AM
#44
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? Yes, you are both right, I guess I'm just getting a little confused, at first, this thread started out as a "best bang for the buck" discussion, now it's turning into a "who has the baddest at any price" I guess what I'm trying to say is I definately want in the game, just decide what rules we are following. I didn't mean to exclude anyone with the "no handwork" idea, it was just meant as a suggestion to eliminate "tweaked on" heads in the comparison. By the way, I still haven't seen anybody else's stage I numbers, sounds like JPR has his act together, anybody else??
Ed
Ed
10-21-2002, 02:52 PM
#45
On The Tree
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: MT PLEASANT PA
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? I have a set of stage 2 heads from gtp on there way to my house, they should be here this week might let you test them if i dont get them put on right away.
10-21-2002, 08:04 PM
#46
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brentwood, Ca
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? I think we got off topic! <img border="0" alt="[whiner]" title="" src="graemlins/gr_cry.gif" />
Oh well, lots of good stuff though!!
Oh well, lots of good stuff though!!
10-23-2002, 06:24 AM
#48
Teching In
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? I will offer to test the heads at no charge in the interest of a fair comparison. Tests will include:
* Intake and exhaust flow up to .650" lift in .050" increments.
* Swirl meter RPM for the above test points.
* Can test with LS6 intake and short exhaust pipe bolted to head. (Better indication how the port is working with the intake manifold and header)
* Port volumes
* Chamber volumes
All tests will be done with a 3.9" bore adapter.
I just checked the calibration on my SF-400 superflow bench and it is ready to go. Let me know. Thanks,
Paul J.
* Intake and exhaust flow up to .650" lift in .050" increments.
* Swirl meter RPM for the above test points.
* Can test with LS6 intake and short exhaust pipe bolted to head. (Better indication how the port is working with the intake manifold and header)
* Port volumes
* Chamber volumes
All tests will be done with a 3.9" bore adapter.
I just checked the calibration on my SF-400 superflow bench and it is ready to go. Let me know. Thanks,
Paul J.
10-23-2002, 10:05 AM
#49
TECH Addict
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? Interesting that this should come up as I am about to pull my ARE heads because of a blown gasket/lifted head.... <img border="0" alt="[Burnout]" title="" src="graemlins/burnout.gif" />
10-24-2002, 12:27 AM
#50
Teching In
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? It seems like this would be a great full blown feature article for GMHTP. Someone should contact them and see if they are up for it. They may even help sponser it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" />
10-24-2002, 07:08 PM
#51
TECH Fanatic
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,089
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by T/A Barracus:
<strong>It seems like this would be a great full blown feature article for GMHTP. Someone should contact them and see if they are up for it. They may even help sponser it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am ready when this gets organinzed, just waiting on word for the details <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> .
Joe.
<strong>It seems like this would be a great full blown feature article for GMHTP. Someone should contact them and see if they are up for it. They may even help sponser it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="gr_grin.gif" /> </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I am ready when this gets organinzed, just waiting on word for the details <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="gr_stretch.gif" /> .
Joe.
10-24-2002, 07:17 PM
#52
Moderator
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Montgomery Texas
Posts: 5,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Why not CNC S2 heads over GTP S2 heads? I would not waist the time or money of a set!!!!!!!!! Another production type head..
I feel the same way as you do Terry!!!!!
CNC heads suck.
Terry Burger
Project F Houston: 2001 Z28, MMS Stage 2X heads/cam
10.87@127.1 1.56 60' at Carlsbad (3220#, approx 1000' DA)
Now Testing: MMS 396ci "all bore", 496rwhp, 460rwtq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<small>[ October 24, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: BADZ ]</small>
I feel the same way as you do Terry!!!!!
CNC heads suck.
Terry Burger
Project F Houston: 2001 Z28, MMS Stage 2X heads/cam
10.87@127.1 1.56 60' at Carlsbad (3220#, approx 1000' DA)
Now Testing: MMS 396ci "all bore", 496rwhp, 460rwtq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<small>[ October 24, 2002, 07:21 PM: Message edited by: BADZ ]</small>
