My Originals are out for overhaul. Being fitted with 2.350" intake. Because of the size and weight, we decided on hollow stems from Ferrea. They are galactic back order. My other option is Titanium. Valves and new copper seats are a $900 upgrade. I was told that the Ti valves would add a lot of life to the valves, springs and valve job. I'm leaning towards the upgrade. Any downside besides cost?

How much of a gain are you expecting over a 2.300 valve. My second set of heads have a 2.300 titanium valve but I didn't buy them as they came that way. After a certain point money is better spent on the Moved centerline heads. A 2.300 valve will easily go 420 cfm on an honest CALIBRATED bench.

I agree with PBR on the bigger valves. I'd rather see that head with a 50* valve job than a bigger valve.

The Ti valves will be a life saver. When the valves get long and the head diameter gets bigger you need to go to smaller stems and Titanium.

Your heads will thank you for the Ti intakes.

Ti valves definitely worth the money. Easier on the whole valve train.
Performance gain will net be huge by any means, like said above I'm not sure the new valve size will help as much as a real good valve job ie... 50*

could you explain the 50* valve job to an old, dum guy ? and could this be applied to any head ? TIA.

This might help:
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/1203phr-rethinking-the-valve-job/

I don't know. It seems like any is better than a 45 for racing, according to the charts. Maybe it's just a Chevy thing.

Hardly a Chevy thing. Done correctly, it works on most heads.

Chrysler guys are just slow to respond.

I had B1MC heads.. they came with the
TI valves..2.4 I had to replace 1.. was
$110 per ti valve but they are a fair
bit lighter.. to me.. it was worth
the price specially if you turn up the
RPMs

I don't think that the MC intake valves come any other way. At least, no one that I have heard ever used anything else. I've already paid for the hollow stems, $325. I guess a $900 upgrade to include new copper seats installed is a pretty good deal. No sense stopping now, going to pull the trigger on the upgrade.

Thanks, everybody, for the input.

It's only money. You can't take it with you.





I tell my my wife that. Doesn't work. You can try it if you want. YMMV.

I went down this road with 440 -1 heads (bigger intakes, 2.30 vs 2.25) and the flow chart said 5 percent minimum gain. Et gain? Zero! So my point is it might be a good idea to do sme heavy research like et gains, talk to those that have direct experiance with this move. The switch to MCs might gain you much more hp per $$?

The gain to the MC head will be minimal if the OP uses a 50* seat on his head and the smaller valve.

I'd still use a Ti intake.

Of course, you could use the MC head with a bigger valve and a 50* seat and make more power, if the port has the area to feed that valve.

The OP's name is Kenny. (Nothing against you, mad, but I've always hated that phrase "The OP".)
I decided to go with Titanium intakes for the weight savings and letting my valve train live longer.

Power increase with the 2.350" over the 2.300" might be marginal, but since there is no price difference, as far as I see, it's free horsepower. I'm letting my machinist make the final call on the valve angles. My engine goal is to hit 1,000 hp with my 605 build. If it's 1,001 or 1,100 I really don't care. I want my car to run 7.90's when I'm done and not break anything. For at least the first 2 race days, anyway.

I'm ok with the bigger valve Kenny. I'd ask your engine builder if he has done a 50 or 55* seat.monce you start with them, and understand what you're getting, you'll almost always use one.

I use them on my street engines and I'm .620 lift. I know of other engine builders who have used a 50* seat with as little lift as .485 so don't let lift influence the decision.

Also, don't be afraid if the heads lose low lift flow, stay even in the mids and gain a bit (or no gain at all) at high lift as flow doesn't matter. It's all about the shape.

I also forgot to mention that one problem you run into with a 50 or 55* seat is to put a steeper seat on a valve that has a 45* seat will take a ton of materiel off the margin.

That's why it's better to order valves with a 50* face on them. You don't kill the margin.

thank you !

The extra grinding really shouldn't effect the margin, since you will be grinding material off of the face. But the whole overall outer edge of the valve would be thinner due to the steeper angle. Regardless, since I am getting valve blanks ordered up, it would be something to mention. The valve lift will be .900". I'm planning on spinning this to 7,000 rpm. Would these parameters let a 50 degree valve angle shine above a 45.

Absolutely a steeper than 45* seat will help.

As to the valve face, remember when you change from a 45 degree face to anything steeper, the grinding wheel starts at the margin side of the valve and grinds towards the stem.

The opposite of that is grinding say, a 44.5 or even a 44 degree angle on a valve with a 45 degree face. The grinder will start at the stem side of the face and grind out to the margin.

If I am facing used valves that were in decent shape, I'd use a 44.5 setting on the grinder. Especially on exhaust valves. If the seats were coined in a bit, I'd set the grinder at 44 degrees so it didn't affect stem height as much.


Just a couple of things to think about.

Starting with all new valves. I'm going to have some conversation with my head builder on this. Some interesting food for thought. With a steeper valve angle, would it cause any deterioration in valve life?