Although I don't have them back in my (not currently) greasy hands, yet, I wanted to give y'all a Preview of Coming Attractions re: the standard-port Edelbrock Victors that Dwayne Porter at Porter Racing Heads is completing for me. Pictures will have to wait until then, too.

"Why < you ask > did you have PRH do another set of Victors when you already have the Hughes CNC-ported Victors you bought YEARS ago and still haven't run?"

Good question! And one that I've asked myself many, many, (did I mention "many"?), many times.

First... because I'm an IDIOT. This is probably not a surprise to many on here, but I'm willing to be perfectly transparent on this point.

OK, now that we've got that out of the way, I'll touch on the other reasons that inspired me to take this on:

1. I'm stuck on running stock-stroke 440-based combinations. While everyone else is looking for 4.15" or 4.25" cranks to drop into their B / RB blocks, I've been happy reaching a performance level w/ my RB 451 & 452 engines that were slowly approaching the track-legal 10.0 limit for my '73 Challenger, a.k.a. The MoPig.

2. I don't even think of my engine as a stock-stroke 440, as much as a 3.75"-stroke 452 c.i. small-block with a long 6.76" rod and a seriously HEAVY bob weight.

3. The Hughes CNC'd heads, which I will be running when I FINALLY (EVENTUALLY?) get The MoPig running again may, in fact, work great. He11, given the $$$ I've put into them, I should seriously hope so. And if the car steps up its performance from the previous 10.5s at 126+ bests in good weather w/ the old combination to something much closer to 10.0s in comparable conditions, then they'll have proved themselves (along w/ the switch from the old solid flat-tappet cam to a solid roller).

4. However... in terms of port size & runner volume, they're waaaay larger than the old Stage VIs that Porter Racing Heads did for me years ago. Yeah, the Hughes heads are 20-40 CFM better than the Stage VIs depending upon the lift point checked, but they're also 60+ cc larger in volume (even factoring in the Stage VIs were used w/ RB intake spacers and the Victors have an a designed-in port extension that serves the same purpose for a raised-runner head). Cross-section area on the Hughes heads are - in blunt terms - freakin' huge compared to the small-port Stage VIs.

5. Simply put, I think the Hughes heads, even though not their Max Wedge version, are a BIG "standard" port head that might be better suited to an application w/ more cubes than I have. And that concern made me start thinking some time ago that I might want to hedge my bet by coming up w/ a different set of heads based on the premise of keeping the runner volumes and the cross-section areas smaller, thus better suited to my combination.

6. A few "convenient" events that supported this decision:
a) A few years ago Brian at IMM ("ou812") built a 400 motor w/ a set of the later model (has a smaller chamber with more quench area) Victors and sold the short block off after dyno tests only. Those heads, other than having an IMM valve job and some milling for his desired chamber size, were unported... and just sitting on a shelf at IMM gathering dust. So, we talked a few(?) times and I ended up buying them "as is".
b) I saw pics of the CNC chamber that Hughes came up with for the later model Victors and decided that, even though I wasn't interested in their CNC ports on these heads (remember the goal was to have a smaller-volume intake runner, not the same as I already had w/ the earlier heads), that could be a time saver in getting the heads ready. Hughes was willing to do just the chamber portion of their CNC routine, so that's what I had done.

7. My original plan was to do the porting myself, which is why I did an R&D project on a Procomp Victor-clone casting see what I could come up w/ on my own. I sent this head up to Dwayne to check on his flow bench (more powerful than mine) and give him an opportunity to see what he could do on one port vs. my two different hack-job R&D ports. My work wasn't horrible, but Dwayne came up w/ a more effective port across the majority of the lift curve, and did it w/ a smaller final runner volume than my two ports. Hey, it's what he does for a living, so I don't feel bad about him "one upping" me there. And we both managed to grind basically standard-size ports that were capable of reaching 345 - 350 CFM at the peak lifts I was going to be cammed for... kind of like a decent (but not great) SB Chevy head.

8. I sent the ex-IMM heads w/ the Hughes CNC'd chambers up to Dwayne, along w/ a single out-of-the-box late-model Victor head I picked up off RacingJunk, and gave him the OK to see if he could duplicate a port in the ex-IMM heads like he did w/ the Procomp, and I could use that as a template for completing the rest. Well, it turns out, possibly since Brian received these heads from Edelbrock right after they switched from the original 75 cc chamber to the later 72 cc version, that both of these heads have significant core shift. And the core shift not only meant there was going to be a lot more grinding required, but that there was a good bit of variation from runner to runner in their as-cast shapes. Kwap...

9. I had to take a serious reality check:
a) I'm already strapped for time and still haven't got my engine completed w/ the parts that I have already on hand.
b) It was likely to take even longer to do a good job of porting the ex-IMM heads w/ the Hughes CNC'd chambers than I'd expected, and my own porting abilities might not result in the best possible job given the casting "stuff" Dwayne found after he started on 'em.
c) Some times I have more time than money, and other times it's the opposite. Although not ideal for either right now, I went ahead and asked Dwayne to go ahead and just do the whole bleepin' porting job. It's the only way I could ensure they'd get done in any timely manner.

(FWIW, that out-of-the-box late-model Victor I also sent for comparison, although not impressive at all in flow #s as it comes from Edelbrock, doesn't have the same serious core shift issues the other heads do. It was cast at a later date, so I'm keeping my eye open for another single late-model head that I could use to pair 'em up, and hoping that "E" got their casting issues worked after that first production run.)


Results

These aren't the "final" #s that will reflect an average of multiple ports' tests (i.e., the averaged #s could easily go down due to port-to-port variations impacting consistency). However, here's how things evolved w/ info that Dwayne has provided me to date:

1. Here's the #7 cylinder from the heads with the Hughes CNC chambers & IMM valve job, but before any porting:

Lift-------- I / E
.100---70.8 / 59.0
.200--142.7 / 119.0
.300--212.2 / 155.0
.400--266.5 / 172.8
.500--303.2 / 179.5
.550--311.8 / 179.8
.600--302.4 / 181.0
.650--304.2 / 184.7
.700--312.6 / 183.5

Dwayne's comments: "These new heads aren't even close to the early heads, which flowed 325+/220+ ootb. I don't remember them sounding like this either." (Ummm... that's not a compliment. It means they're noisy on the flow bench, and being noisy indicates an issue with the port design. - Brad)

Also, although I don't have the flow #s for the out-of-the-box late-model Victor head on hand at this writing to include, what I can say is they were definitely lower than the ones posted above. Unfortunately, these are simply no longer heads you should want to run "out of the box".

2. Same port w/ additional work, as described below:

Dwayne: "Did a bowl blend on the head with the chambers done. The bowl diameter where the "bulge" of extra crap was encroaching into the bowl was something stupid like 1.760. I opened it up to just under 2.00, measured even with the guide. That was a fair amount of hacking, but I didn't go after the guide boss or the area in the roof next to the boss. Pretty much concentrated on the bowls, and removed the ridges at the port entrance/exit. The exhaust bowl is still pretty small, although it looks like I took a bunch out compared to ootb."

Lift-------- I / E
.100--69.0 / 58.4
.200-139.0 / 116.5
.300-208.6 / 162.4
.400-267.2 / 197.1
.500-313.7 / 218.3
.550-326.9 / 223.2
.600-334.5 / 226.9
.650-340.2 / 229.9
.700-342.0 / 229.9

"Still sounds pretty ratty from around .550 up. The exhaust is still just too small (I think). I've started roughing in what should be the equivilant to how I did the PC head, so we'll see how that pans out. My overall impression of the direction Edelbrock went with these heads is........'it's just dumb'."

3. More work, plus intake back-cut testing:

Dwayne:
- "Port openings for both intake and exhaust are as ootb. So here's the thing... The head is pretty finicky about the back cut. . I flowed to .750 on all tests, and the flow dropped there on all tests except the OE port/OE chamber (well, the OE port/CNC chamber died after .550 then kinda came back but sounded awful)"
- "I had a feeling the back cut would pick the flow up pretty good until it backed up, then the question was how bad did it back up?"

Long story short, Dwayne tried a couple of different back-cut angles & widths to see how the back-cuts changed things. In his words, the heads "are quite responsive to this minor change."

V1 - First back-cut config tested
V2 - Second back-cut; per Dwayne, with a "shorter cut at a steeper angle"

Lift-----V1 / V2
.100--76.7 / 75.5
.200-157.3 / 152.9
.300-227.4 / 220.8
.400-283.5 / 279.7
.500-326.9 / 325.0
.550-339.0 / 336.4
.600-342.8 / 346.6
.650-346.6 / 349.6
.700-344.7 / 359.1
.750-342.8 / 343.9

4. Finished "template" ports

We talked over the results and decided to go w/ the "shorter cut at a steeper angle" intake back-cut because the nose-over point above .700” doesn’t seem to be impacted by changes in test pressure from 28” to 35”. Dwayne suspects the high-lift stalling issue is a result of the Hughes CNC chamber design (I see issues w/ it myself, and my older Hughes CNC heads show the same nose-over characteristic). FYI, my net lift will be under .700” even w/ 1.6 intake rockers on my cam.

The "template" intake & exhaust (no exhaust back-cut & no flow tube during test) #s are:

Lift-------- I / E
.100--75.5 / 53.5
.200-152.9 / 119.0
.300-220.8 / 157.4
.400-279.7 / 195.1
.500-325.0 / 221.9
.550-336.4 / 230.6
.600-346.6 / 236.8
.650-349.6 / 241.4
.700-359.1 / 246.4
.750-343.9 / xxx.x

Also, here are Dwayne's high-lift intake tests at 35” H20 while checking how this port & valve config handled more pressure (especially to see if it backed up worse under higher test pressure), considering it dropped off above .700”:
.600--387.6
.650--391.5
.700--399.0
.750--384.7

Comparing the original 28” H20 results to the 35" H20 converted back to 28” [ SQRT (28/35) = .8944 ] shows consistent results, regardless of the test pressure:
H2O – 28" / 28" conv from 35"
.600--346.6 / 346.7 < +.1 >
.650--349.6 / 350.2 < +.6 >
.700--359.1 / 356.9 < -2.2 >
.750--343.9 / 344.8 < +.9 >


Summary To Date

--> Adjusting the runner volume for the built-in extension, I believe these heads can be considered a 250 - 255 cc head for comparison to traditional standard-location stock-size runner heads (e.g. Edelbrock Performer RPM, Trick Flow PowerPort 240). Dwayne even left the runner entry size the same as Edelbrock CNC'd it, so it's a true "standard port" entry. My older "standard port" Hughes CNC-ported Victors are opened up at the entry to 2.40" x 1.30", which IMO is sort of a "Standard Plus" compared to the original 2.30" x 1.25" entry size.

--> How do they compare to something like the Trick Flow PowerPort 240? Well, Dwayne's own TF test gives the advantage to the standard-location Trick Flow head in the .200 - .300" range, then the Victor's raised-runner "template" intake port above starts to pull away increasingly from there. Given the unknown variation of the "final" averaged tests, I'll say it's probably safe to estimate* the differences as shown below:

TF - PRH test of first-production-run Trick Flow PowerPort 240
EV - Estimated difference w/ PRH-ported Edelbrock Victor standard-port

Lift------ TF / EV*
.100-- 71.6 / +4
.200- 156.1 / -3
.300- 229.3 / -8
.400- 274.8 / +4
.500- 302.9 / +15
.550- 311.1 / +20
.600- 316.0 / +25
.650- 317.9 / +25
.700- 319.7 / +25
.750- 321.6 / +15

--> So what does this mean for Joe Average?

Probably... NOTHING!

Nobody is likely to develop a true standard-port CNC program like this for the Victor. Therefore, it's only available as a hand-ported option for someone willing to pay for it by the hour (or w/ the skills to port 'em themselves). Looks like I am that "someone"... at least using the "willing to pay" criteria.

And it's entirely possible that my own on-track testing in the future doesn't show any gains with these heads over the older Hughes CNC-ported Victors that I'm concerned are "too big" for my engine. If that's the case, I suppose it'll be Reality: 1; Brad's Hypothesis: 0.

But that's a lot of what Hot Rodding is about, right? Thinking about what "should" work better than what you have, then trying it out and seeing the results? Yeah, even for an old (er), fat(ter), ex-racer / Test-n-Tune junky like myself.

///////////////////////////

Brad all I have to say is, YOU ARE AS CRAZY AS I AM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hopefully it runs good! You think you'll ever try the bigger CNC'd heads just to see how they compare?

Going to start w /the original Hughes CNC'd heads, then at some point swap to the PRH-ported heads to see what they do.

I bought the 400 shortblock, but given my budget and Brian's opinion of the Victor heads OOTB, I opted to have him massage my RPM heads. Good to see the Victor heads getting put to some good use.

Out-of-the-box head w/ Edelbrock valve job #1 cyl:

Lift-------- I / E
.100---71.6 / 52.8
.200--135.9 / 99.2
.300--196.4 / 143.8
.400--249.4 / 174.8
.500--292.9 / 187.7
.550--309.9 / 189.0
.600--296.7 / 191.0
.650--304.2 / 191.7
.700--317.5 / 192.9
.750--317.5 / 191.7

Dwayne: “The way the ex shorts are shaped, I'm pretty sure the high lift ex flow would just get worse from one end of the head to the other. The #7 ex port has extra 'stuff' in the way which I'm sure would make it flow less ootb.”

For quick reference (instead of having to scroll up and find it), the #7 cylinder from the heads with the Hughes CNC chambers & IMM valve job w/o any porting:

Lift-------- I / E
.100---70.8 / 59.0
.200--142.7 / 119.0
.300--212.2 / 155.0
.400--266.5 / 172.8
.500--303.2 / 179.5
.550--311.8 / 179.8
.600--302.4 / 181.0
.650--304.2 / 184.7
.700--312.6 / 183.5

Interesting...Good stuff!

What angle on V2? I ask cause it's giving up CFM up to .550".

It's up to Dwayne on whether he wants to add more details on the back-cuts, etc.

Yeah, V1 showed better flow up to.550", but it was also more unstable on the flow bench. It noses over earlier, too.

The best configuration from a flow stability standpoint was no back-cut at all.

V2 was the best compromise for both improving flow and flow stability.

FWIW, my gross cam lift w/ a 1.6 rocker is about .690".

I say just send me the set you`re not going to use and we can plop em on my junk and see how much better/faster they are than my standard port home ported rpm`s..............

Edelbrock should have left the port alone and updated the chamber. Would have been a good piece that way... new and "improved" isn't always better.

Thanks for the info.
Do you have the hight measurement of the rocker shaft centerline parallel to the valve tip on those heads? I'm trying to get this info for different heads. The length would be nice to have also.

Data for four (4) different ports (two on each head) averaged:

INTAKE - AVG (4)
0.100 -- 75.0
0.200 -- 151.3
0.300 -- 220.1
0.400 -- 280.3
0.500 -- 326.1
0.550 -- 338.2
0.600 -- 346.0
0.650 -- 350.5
0.700 -- 355.5
0.750 -- 346.7

EXHAUST - AVG (4) - W/ 2” PIPE
0.100 -- 55.0
0.200 -- 116.2
0.300 -- 154.9
0.400 -- 194.0
0.500 -- 223.3 -- 237.6
0.550 -- 233.3 -- 249.2
0.600 -- 241.3 -- 258.5
0.650 -- 247.2 -- 267.5
0.700 -- 251.8 -- 273.5
0.750 -- 255.4 -- 278.3

This is probably everything I can post at this time, until I get the heads back and can take some pics.

For those of you who thought I was joking, here are the PRH std port Victors compared (FWIW) w/ a bunch of SBC LS3-type heads tested in Hot Rod Magazine on a 468 c.i. LS stroker. I'm sure they weren't flowed on a 4.375" bore, either.

Those numbers for the LS motor on the exhaust side are also without a tube?

The article made no mention of the tests using a tube, and I don't know enough about what the LS3 family exhaust port is capable of to know for sure.

Link to article HERE.

I never get those things into my shop, so I'm not very well versed in which head would flow what, however, looking at some charts from AFR, their numbers say they were achieved with a 1-7/8" tube.

210cc LSX = 237 @ .600 on 3.900 bore
215cc LSX = 246 @ .600 on 4.060 bore
230cc LSX = 252 @ .600 on 4.125 bore

Intake flow for the same heads/lift/bore is listed at:
210cc = 302
215cc = 312
230cc = 328

Yeah, I'm definitely thinking "tubed" for all those SBC exhaust tests. I just found some data on the LS7 head that comes from the factory CNC'd:

"the exhaust ports flow is as follows:

Lift ___.100 _.200 _.300 _.350 _.400 _.450 _.500 _.550 _.600 _.650 _.700
#1 Exh. 57.5 118.8 176.7 207.3 221.7 229.7 235.9 240.8 243.9 246.2 247.9
#2 Exh. 56.2 115.4 168.5 194.4 206.2 213.4 218.5 222.9 225.6 227.8 228.9

The #1 exhaust port was tested with a 1.875” dia. Pipe 2.5” long.
The #2 exhaust port was tested with out a test pipe."

The CNC'd LS7 head's intake busts out some pretty stout #s too (360-ish), but it's a 12* valve angle and "next generation" compared to the LS3 stuff I mentioned above.

Hate to make you feel bad but those LS3 numbers are way low

http://www.lingenfelter.com/images/Largeview/LPECNCL92intake.pdf


This is what most everyone gets on a stock ls3

Pretty crazy stock flow #'s.. that's like a 600hp cyl. head.

I don't feel bad. The Victors are what they are, and should be more than enough head for my POS.

Your junk always runs good when it does run. Im sure we lost some good tech advise over the past ?6 years because your car hasnt been running

The plan was to see how doable it was to get these std port Victors to flow an honest 350cfm without making them as big as the Hughes CNC version, which is advertised at 313cc, and had the intake port opening big enough to where Brad ended up having one of his M1 manifolds welded up so he could port match it to the CNC heads.
I wanted to do it without making the port opening any bigger.
The results posted are from a port with a runner volume of 294cc, and the port opening was left untouched.
I also checked the volume of the untouched head and it was 276cc.

It's really a shame that edelbrock decided to fill in the bowls on these heads.
At least 1/2 the time spent porting these things was wasted just getting the bowls opened up to a more normal size.

To confirm my observations about the ootb exhaust flow on #7 vs #1, here are the test results:

#7
Lift-------I/E
.100---64.2/51.0
.200--126.1/104.1
.300--183.4/143.8
.400--238.8/167.4
.500--281.6/174.8
.550--297.4/176.0
.600--311.8/176.0
.650--302.4/176.0
.700--308.4/176.0
.750--317.5/176.0

For comparison, here are some numbers from an ootb early version head from 2008.

Lift------I/E
.100---69.6/51.9
.200--143.8/102.9
.300--194.3/149.9
.400--247.7/184.7
.500--291.8/204.8
.550--311.0/212.6
.600--316.8/216.5
.650--324.5/220.4
.700--330.2/223.1
.750--334.8/224.3

Those early version heads were the best flowing ootb std port heads I've ever seen.
With some minor chamber work and some bowl blending they were easily into the 340's.
Now to get close to those numbers you have to do some fairly substantial porting.
The newer version might be "new", but IMO..... Not even close to "improved".
More like a BIG step backwards in terms of being able to buy a decent piece and getting impressive results ootb, or with minimal reworking.

The end result, IMO, is similar to the Chapman 260 cc Stage VIs. I'd passed twice on opportunities to buy the Chapmans years ago, but always thought they had most of "the right stuff" for my type of build.

Yeah, those Chapman heads were probably the top of the heap. Especially for a car like yours.

I think the new Trick Flows are also good but would be killer by moving the ports up. If they would extend the ports by 1/2 inch and move the ports up the same amount then it would be very close to the old Chapman heads. The ports can be moved up in the Trick Flow heads if a person is willing to do the work.......

The Chapmans always escape my memory when talking about BB Mopar heads.
Probably because of their relative "unobtainium" status.

they were very nice pieces though.

I'd be pretty surprised if there aren't already more sets of TF BB Mopar heads in the hands of consumers than all the Chapman stage VI's combined.

Seems like a lot of work for nothing. I would run what you currently have unless you have a money tree in your backyard🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑

The heads arrived yesterday, but I didn't get a chance to open one of the boxes until this morning. I'll try to take some pics in the next couple of days to show the finished rework of the heads compared to an OOB piece.

OK, starting to upload pics (4:48 PM). Bear (bare?) with me...

Stock OOB 72 cc Victor chamber & stock OOB intake ports w/ SuPerformance standard-port intake gasket.

Hughes' CNC chamber mods vs OOB 72 cc chamber.

Hughes CNC chamber, IMM valve job, PRH-ported bowls & runners.

Ported intake runners w/o gasket, w/ Indy SR (std port) gasket, w/ Hughes Engines gasket, and w/ SuPerformance std port gasket. As you can see, the intake runner entry is a "true" standard opening.

Also wondering why Hughes sells their gasket as a combo standard / Max Wedge fitment when they don't put the sealing bead on the outsides of the ports wide enough for a MW port (only the raised roof can be accomodated).

So, what about the early-version Hughes CNC'd 75 cc chamber heads I have, too? Here's a view of the later chamber w/ their CNC job vs. the earlier chamber w/ their CNC job & full CNC porting option.

How much bigger is the entry of the Hughes CNC'd 313 cc (their advertised volume) "standard" runner than the PRH-ported 294 cc Victors?

Here's the Hughes head's intake entries w/o gasket, followed by the gasket I carved up as a template to match the CNC'd entries, followed by that same gasket shown on the "new" head intake entries.

How close is the Hughes "standard" CNC port to a Max Wedge? Here's a an Indy MW gasket placed over their "standard" CNC port. I'd say it's pretty close in width (1.30" port vs 1.35" gasket), but close to .250" shorter in height.

Ironically, Hughes' own intake gaskets like I showed above aren't designed big enough for their own "standard" Victor CNC port.

Some gasket size comparisons to go along w/ the gasket-on-ports pics
- Indy MW over my "hand carved" Hughes CNC "standard" port
- Hughes CNC "standard" port over SuPerformance standard port

I think that's about all I have for pics.

Also, I just wanted to mention that guys like Dwayne Porter, Brian Hafliger, Brett Miller, and the rest of the people who grind on heads for a living really do seem to blend science & art together when they carve good ports from so-so castings.

Looks good. I like all the side by side pictures with the different gaskets. These things are so confusing for the average guy to sort out so it is nice when someone takes the time to document the process so well.

How small the bowls really are in the unported head isn't all that apparent in the pic, and the bowls in the ported heads were even more filled in.

Brad, If you look at the area on the top of the ported heads, where the pads are on the intake runners, you can see all the indications of the core shift....... The head bolt hole, valve cover bolt hole, head bolt recess next to the ports, etc.
It was just as bad, maybe worse, in the bowls of those heads.
Maybe you could get a pic of that area of the head.
You'll see the unported head doesn't have that issue.

Just compared the OOB head and the ported heads and it's REALLY easy to see the core shift characteristics you mentioned above now that I know what to look for. I can post pics later that show the difference.

Also, all 3 heads have 2011 casting dates, but the two with the core shift issues were from an earlier run.

Brad...Mine were early heads and came out pretty good. You gonna get that thing done before I head to the drag strip in the sky?? Also you have lots of good info there...

I hope you have a long life expectancy!

Seems like a lot of work for very little gain.

Brad...I never made a full recovery from that incident in 2013. On the other hand I just found my receipt for my Victor standard port heads. I bought them Jan.4th 2012.

Hey, Dwayne... forgot to ask what the warranty on the heads is.

Brad, I guarantee you won't wear out that porting

LOL, might go through a couple keyboards though.

Ouch. Lol