Warhawk LS7X 12deg.
11-26-2006, 10:00 PM
#63
Originally Posted by MerlinPro
Stang,
A very fair question and here's where we are now.
The head you see at the top of this thread has been tested as follows:
350/250 @ .700. The head was assembled and tested as it came in the door, as-cast, no bowl blend, porting or back-cut valves- basically nail heads. The numbers were still climbing at .900. This head will want big cams.The results directed that we relocate the valve job slightly-which is happening now. We should have a new test sample head next week with the adjustments, then we'll test again. I'll post if it happens or not to keep you up.
Almost forgot-I'm told we'll most likely change spec from 2.20 x 1.625 to EITHER of 2.275 OR 1.650. We'll test to confirm.
Thanks for asking.
A very fair question and here's where we are now.
The head you see at the top of this thread has been tested as follows:
350/250 @ .700. The head was assembled and tested as it came in the door, as-cast, no bowl blend, porting or back-cut valves- basically nail heads. The numbers were still climbing at .900. This head will want big cams.The results directed that we relocate the valve job slightly-which is happening now. We should have a new test sample head next week with the adjustments, then we'll test again. I'll post if it happens or not to keep you up.
Almost forgot-I'm told we'll most likely change spec from 2.20 x 1.625 to EITHER of 2.275 OR 1.650. We'll test to confirm.
Thanks for asking.
I don't know quite how to put this, but why are the the numbers so low? A stock LS7 head will do 360cfm (albeit with a larger runner size) at a lower lift.
You say that this is due to these being unworked-on as-cast, but why should the as-cast flow so poorly? My understanding is that this is an aftermarket casting. All other aftermarket castings (dart, AFR, ETP) flow just fine out of the box, and don't need porting or cleanup work to do what they were designed to do.
Likely I am missing something here, and please do let me know if that is the case, but as I see it this just doesn't add up...
11-26-2006, 11:03 PM
#64
Originally Posted by black_knight
MerlinPro,
All other aftermarket castings (dart, AFR, ETP) flow just fine out of the box, and don't need porting or cleanup work to do what they were designed to do.
Likely I am missing something here, and please do let me know if that is the case, but as I see it this just doesn't add up...
All other aftermarket castings (dart, AFR, ETP) flow just fine out of the box, and don't need porting or cleanup work to do what they were designed to do.
Likely I am missing something here, and please do let me know if that is the case, but as I see it this just doesn't add up...
11-27-2006, 07:57 AM
#65
Collections Removal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
black_
As VIPRETR2 points out, all of our competitors and the General offer highly refined and developed parts. They use the best pieces they can find to optimize their designs. Their valve and valve job selections enhance a good port and chamber design.
I have taken pains to point out that this is a test piece, the first one cast and was tested as such-meaning NO development or optimizing. I have been reluctant to post any numbers as these are very preliminary.
We have been late to market which is killing us and the audience here has been very kind and patient to our soap-opera. They have been clamoring for ANY info, so, with the appropriate cautions about getting carried away, I posted the out-of-box number.
We KNOW the design can do better-we're just telling people where we're starting from-cause they want to know.
I pointed out the first round of improvements the testing indicated. We hope to have the recast piece in this week and I'll post as I said. These heads will be fertile ground for talented porters beyond what we offer-but these WILL be badass heads.
Build a bigger bore combination and these heads will put you in a club 3 seconds lower.
As VIPRETR2 points out, all of our competitors and the General offer highly refined and developed parts. They use the best pieces they can find to optimize their designs. Their valve and valve job selections enhance a good port and chamber design.
I have taken pains to point out that this is a test piece, the first one cast and was tested as such-meaning NO development or optimizing. I have been reluctant to post any numbers as these are very preliminary.
We have been late to market which is killing us and the audience here has been very kind and patient to our soap-opera. They have been clamoring for ANY info, so, with the appropriate cautions about getting carried away, I posted the out-of-box number.
We KNOW the design can do better-we're just telling people where we're starting from-cause they want to know.
I pointed out the first round of improvements the testing indicated. We hope to have the recast piece in this week and I'll post as I said. These heads will be fertile ground for talented porters beyond what we offer-but these WILL be badass heads.
Build a bigger bore combination and these heads will put you in a club 3 seconds lower.
11-27-2006, 08:03 AM
#67
Originally Posted by MerlinPro
I have taken pains to point out that this is a test piece
11-27-2006, 08:37 AM
#68
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks for the info.
I would expect these to flow very similar or better than an ls7 when fully ported and with a good valve job. and be a much better head structurally among other things. like merlin said, as cast numbers are just that.
I would expect these to flow very similar or better than an ls7 when fully ported and with a good valve job. and be a much better head structurally among other things. like merlin said, as cast numbers are just that.
11-27-2006, 05:54 PM
#69
Originally Posted by 383ss
I would expect these to flow very similar or better than an ls7 when fully ported and with a good valve job.
Since the as-cast warhawks are priced similarly to LS7 heads, they will need to beat the LS7's in as-cast form. Porting costs money, so when ported, they will need to compete with the 390-400 cfm ported LS7 stuff that is out there.
11-27-2006, 06:16 PM
#70
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by black_knight
I think if they flow "very similar" to stock LS7's when fully ported, then there would be no point. Unported, it already looks like this test unit flows similarly to the stock LS7's so there's really no danger of that.
Since the as-cast warhawks are priced similarly to LS7 heads, they will need to beat the LS7's in as-cast form. Porting costs money, so when ported, they will need to compete with the 390-400 cfm ported LS7 stuff that is out there.
Since the as-cast warhawks are priced similarly to LS7 heads, they will need to beat the LS7's in as-cast form. Porting costs money, so when ported, they will need to compete with the 390-400 cfm ported LS7 stuff that is out there.
sorry, guess I wasn't that clear. thats what I meant. I bet these will be as good or better PORTED than a PORTED LS7 head. plus these should be far superior in casting, strength and I'm sure have many other benefits.
11-28-2006, 07:39 PM
#71
Originally Posted by black_knight
I think if they flow "very similar" to stock LS7's when fully ported, then there would be no point. Unported, it already looks like this test unit flows similarly to the stock LS7's so there's really no danger of that.
Since the as-cast warhawks are priced similarly to LS7 heads, they will need to beat the LS7's in as-cast form. Porting costs money, so when ported, they will need to compete with the 390-400 cfm ported LS7 stuff that is out there.
Since the as-cast warhawks are priced similarly to LS7 heads, they will need to beat the LS7's in as-cast form. Porting costs money, so when ported, they will need to compete with the 390-400 cfm ported LS7 stuff that is out there.
12-01-2006, 07:27 AM
#72
Collections Removal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well in post #53 I told you guys we'd have tested a rebopped LS7X head by now but that has not happened. 
I'm told it will leave the machining center today and arrive here Mon.
Will advise early in the week what's up.
I'm told it will leave the machining center today and arrive here Mon. Will advise early in the week what's up.
12-01-2006, 12:37 PM
#73
Originally Posted by MerlinPro
Well in post #53 I told you guys we'd have tested a rebopped LS7X head by now but that has not happened. I'm told it will leave the machining center today and arrive here Mon.
Will advise early in the week what's up.
I'm told it will leave the machining center today and arrive here Mon. Will advise early in the week what's up.
You guys are dedicated Professionals and it's obvious. Thumbs up emoticon.
12-17-2006, 07:01 PM
#74
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
any more info on these? did you guys try the different size valves and placing?
jegs and summit actually shows these are available
and will ship in 7-20 days... hydraulic and solid roller versions. I'm really wanting to know the specs on the springs for both versions; open/closed pressure and max lifts.
thanks
jegs and summit actually shows these are available
and will ship in 7-20 days... hydraulic and solid roller versions. I'm really wanting to know the specs on the springs for both versions; open/closed pressure and max lifts. thanks
Last edited by 383ss; 12-17-2006 at 07:08 PM.
12-18-2006, 09:46 AM
#75
Collections Removal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
383,
Just befor PRI this newest head was tested with only a fractional gain over the first version. The valve sizes were not increased but the locations in the chamber were repositioned slightly. It's disappointing news but we're working on a fix.
It pisses me that I started this thread on Oct 13 with a promise to post flow the end of that month. Thought we'd be shipping end of Nov.based on casting forecast.
Now it's a month later, and we've still got to look for flow that makes us happy and no way to predict accurate production time.
Because of this, no bill of materials yet selected for assembled head specs.
I do have the spring packages for our LS1X head but that's not what you're looking for.
Sorry if we're delaying your project.
Just befor PRI this newest head was tested with only a fractional gain over the first version. The valve sizes were not increased but the locations in the chamber were repositioned slightly. It's disappointing news but we're working on a fix.
It pisses me that I started this thread on Oct 13 with a promise to post flow the end of that month. Thought we'd be shipping end of Nov.based on casting forecast.
Now it's a month later, and we've still got to look for flow that makes us happy and no way to predict accurate production time.
Because of this, no bill of materials yet selected for assembled head specs.
I do have the spring packages for our LS1X head but that's not what you're looking for.
Sorry if we're delaying your project.
12-18-2006, 10:22 AM
#76
10 Second Club
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kansas City, KS
Posts: 2,893
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MerlinPro
383,
Just befor PRI this newest head was tested with only a fractional gain over the first version. The valve sizes were not increased but the locations in the chamber were repositioned slightly. It's disappointing news but we're working on a fix.
It pisses me that I started this thread on Oct 13 with a promise to post flow the end of that month. Thought we'd be shipping end of Nov.based on casting forecast.
Now it's a month later, and we've still got to look for flow that makes us happy and no way to predict accurate production time.
Because of this, no bill of materials yet selected for assembled head specs.
I do have the spring packages for our LS1X head but that's not what you're looking for.
Sorry if we're delaying your project.
Just befor PRI this newest head was tested with only a fractional gain over the first version. The valve sizes were not increased but the locations in the chamber were repositioned slightly. It's disappointing news but we're working on a fix.
It pisses me that I started this thread on Oct 13 with a promise to post flow the end of that month. Thought we'd be shipping end of Nov.based on casting forecast.
Now it's a month later, and we've still got to look for flow that makes us happy and no way to predict accurate production time.
Because of this, no bill of materials yet selected for assembled head specs.
I do have the spring packages for our LS1X head but that's not what you're looking for.
Sorry if we're delaying your project.
my project isn't being delayed yet, its currently still in the planning stages, with your block and heads near/at the top of the list for consideration. I'll be happy if I can get them by february. 
12-20-2006, 02:44 PM
#78
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Kalifornia
Posts: 1,138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Merlin,
When buying the bare head could a 2.16 intake valve be used on a 4.03 bore with the proper valve job on the ls7x head?
Can the heads accomodate a 9/16 head stud?
When buying the bare head could a 2.16 intake valve be used on a 4.03 bore with the proper valve job on the ls7x head?
Can the heads accomodate a 9/16 head stud?
12-20-2006, 03:38 PM
#79
The know it all's know it all
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MerlinPro
383,
Just befor PRI this newest head was tested with only a fractional gain over the first version. The valve sizes were not increased but the locations in the chamber were repositioned slightly. It's disappointing news but we're working on a fix.
It pisses me that I started this thread on Oct 13 with a promise to post flow the end of that month. Thought we'd be shipping end of Nov.based on casting forecast.
Now it's a month later, and we've still got to look for flow that makes us happy and no way to predict accurate production time.
Because of this, no bill of materials yet selected for assembled head specs.
I do have the spring packages for our LS1X head but that's not what you're looking for.
Sorry if we're delaying your project.
Just befor PRI this newest head was tested with only a fractional gain over the first version. The valve sizes were not increased but the locations in the chamber were repositioned slightly. It's disappointing news but we're working on a fix.
It pisses me that I started this thread on Oct 13 with a promise to post flow the end of that month. Thought we'd be shipping end of Nov.based on casting forecast.
Now it's a month later, and we've still got to look for flow that makes us happy and no way to predict accurate production time.
Because of this, no bill of materials yet selected for assembled head specs.
I do have the spring packages for our LS1X head but that's not what you're looking for.
Sorry if we're delaying your project.
Sean
12-20-2006, 07:10 PM
#80
Collections Removal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sean,
"...your saying is that you can't hit your targeted airflow numbers with the current port geometry. I would assume this is most likely valve head,seat,bowl geometry and it will always be a pain to get right."
Your quote is very near the mark. We are a little unhappy with the seat-to-port relationship. Our "target" numbers (as cast) are around 400 cfm and we've seen encouraging signs approaching that. That's without back cuts and other aids to flow. Just nail heads.
We know we need to "...get a great as cast product out the door " and we're close but not satisfied. Sure-we want the head to be great raw material for the smart porters out there so we're trying to give you all the best starting point we are capable of. Then you'd all have a monster head which is what we're shooting for. No one wants these on the market more than us.Can you say hemorrhaging $$?
To clarify for a moment: "...correct these casting flaws& short commings" . These are not prototype but rather first production samples to verify the dimensions and machining of the design. We're not correcting "flaws" to get flow-we are finding that the machine work needs certain corrections to get where we designed the head to be.
Let me ask you and the open forum: Is a $750, as-cast, bare casting that flows in say, the 360 @ .800 range suitable for you to use as-is or, use as raw porting material? Does everyone want a $1500-$2000 CNC 400+ head?
We'd be interested in your feed-back.
"...your saying is that you can't hit your targeted airflow numbers with the current port geometry. I would assume this is most likely valve head,seat,bowl geometry and it will always be a pain to get right."
Your quote is very near the mark. We are a little unhappy with the seat-to-port relationship. Our "target" numbers (as cast) are around 400 cfm and we've seen encouraging signs approaching that. That's without back cuts and other aids to flow. Just nail heads.
We know we need to "...get a great as cast product out the door " and we're close but not satisfied. Sure-we want the head to be great raw material for the smart porters out there so we're trying to give you all the best starting point we are capable of. Then you'd all have a monster head which is what we're shooting for. No one wants these on the market more than us.Can you say hemorrhaging $$?
To clarify for a moment: "...correct these casting flaws& short commings" . These are not prototype but rather first production samples to verify the dimensions and machining of the design. We're not correcting "flaws" to get flow-we are finding that the machine work needs certain corrections to get where we designed the head to be.
Let me ask you and the open forum: Is a $750, as-cast, bare casting that flows in say, the 360 @ .800 range suitable for you to use as-is or, use as raw porting material? Does everyone want a $1500-$2000 CNC 400+ head?
We'd be interested in your feed-back.