Thanks for the feedback and the great story-telling...I always love reading this type of stuff because to me anyways it tells a tale of someone learing, trying things and figuring them out. That is utlimately what makes it fun for me. Your porting adventures are pretty similiar to my experience...the first set of heads was quite a learning lesson...I managed to use them...but it was the 2nd set where "all of a sudden" I felt like a pro...only to massively break through the port into the water...ha ha...oops...

Truth be told, I really didn't have a reason to pull the heads off the motor...but since I wanted to freshen them up and the static CR bump along with some further porting/streamlining were just "around the corner" I figured I'd give it a try.

So far I'm done with one of the heads...about 2/3 done with the 2nd one. Need to get to the intake side of the port now and gasket match along with slight widening and roof bump removal.

For what it's worth...I made myself a Helgesen E-bar tool...LOL...what an "adventure"...clubbered the thing out of some threaded rods (I'll post a pic later, meanwhile I've attached a pic of the genuine item) and to the best of my understanding the measuring capability comes from the distance of the meassuring bar and both the bottom and top bars (must be the same). On my heads I unfortunately have an off-set drilled pushrod holes, so while the one side can be opened up to the full 1" width, the twin port could only go about 0.9"...my tool would show a reasonable about of thickness left but on the thin side (0.9" width) I would actually close up the gap...so I think my tool is ever-so-slightly off since I'm not getting a true reading on that side.

Well you guys...the results are in, brought one of the heads to the same shop that did the flow test originally (same machine, etc)...actually had the same guy do the work (since I brought the original flow sheet write-up with me and he could tell it was his).

For completeness sake, here are the BEFORE & AFTER numbers for the INTAKE port only flow (no changes to exhaust):

LIFT - BEFORE - AFTER - %CHANGE

0.100 - 67 - 67 - 0
0.150 - 99 - 102 - 3
0.200 - 130 - 138 - 6
0.250 - 162 - 175 - 8
0.300 - 189 - 205 - 8
0.350 - 215 - 232 - 8
0.400 - 235 - 253 - 7
0.450 - 253 - 267 - 6
0.500 - 262 - 282 - 8
0.550 - 261 - 291 - 12
0.600 - 248 - 283 - 14

Sooo...while I love the bigger numbers, I need your feedback re: is this a reasonable improvement given the work I did? Or are the numbers too "optimistic"???

The flow bench guy said: "...I checked the numbers over, they seemed high for the size of the ports (bowl, lack of any significant short-side-radius work, etc) but they were consistent...seems like a good flow...".

To me they make sense...the low lift stuff matches pretty well and at higher lifts things really take off, I assume this is due to easier less obstructed port roof.

Here are a couple of shots I managed to take to capture the final shape:

Wow. Those are W2 flow numbers from a P-car head. Pretty good.
How many hours you got in them?

Those are good numbers but not W2 numbers. Also, a W2 flowing 290 CFM will make way more HP than a Pcar head flowing the same. Don't get caught up in the numbers.

That said, you need to figure out how to NET .650-.660 lift and that will be almost impossible with standard length valves. If you install longer valves, you will be hard pressed to get the geometry back in shape.

Never say never i guess, but that's a big number for a 2.02 valve at only .550 lift from an OE head.

I would have tested another port if I saw numbers like that, as verification.

Yep, look at the numbers at .300 and .400 too...

I would be very HAPPY to check a set of my Edelbrock heads on that flowbench.

I ignore the .550 and .600 lift numbers. I'm within a few CFM on a 2.02 valve on a Flow Data bench. But I know, for a fact, he and I use a different valve job.

The rest of his numbers are close.

Well, this last set of changes at most 1.5-2hrs a port...maybe not even. All I really did was to remove the left-over valve guide boss casting that sloped away and into the roof...I tried to make that as "steep" as possible by basically removeing as much of the material as possible but without joepardizing the guide support that's needed. It is by no means nowhere near some of the pics I've seen floating around where literaly just the guide itself is left in place. I'm just not that brave...LOL...

In making these changes I suppose my goal was to increase the .500-.600 flow, here is why: my current cam is Hughes HE3844 hydraulic flat tappet. Lift @ 1.5 ratio is .536/.540, but with 1.6 ratio it is .571/.576.

I do in fact have a set of Crane iron 1.6 ratio rockers and have been intending to actually do an "at the track" change between the two to understand what impact that has on my combination. Really just a poor man's attempt at maximizing the combo while learning a thing or two while I'm at it.

If that head flowed 291 @ .550 on my bench, it would be the same as the Competition CNC ported TFS 230cc SBC head with a 2.08 valve, flowed on a 4.00" bore, that I tested a couple of weeks ago.

Do I think that head would flow that on my bench? No.
But I also won't say it's out of the question.

I'm a firm believer that you can't really compare numbers from different benches.

Another thing is......
When they're your own heads, you can spend as much time on them as you like.
When you're having someone pay you to do it, if you take too long, you end up putting in extra time that you can't really charge for.
Porting a set of OE iron heads only commands so many dollars.
I can do a set of X heads in 20-22hrs. That isn't a "max effort" type of job, but I basic "full port and polish", including the chambers.
With a 2.055 11/32 stem valve they'll flow 275-280 @ .550 lift, without putting any holes in them other than perhaps the valve cover bolt hole.

It looks like you may have done more work around the guide at the roof, but then the X head has a better short turn....... Could be a wash.

That is a bit high at .550 lift but the rest of the curve is very good for that valve size. Mine flow within a few of what he has, on an entirely different bench. My issue is that he is a bit high over .550 but they should run well.

I purposely used a 2.02 valve.