I saw these in the latest Mancini Flyer and no nothing about them. Any opinons out there about them.

My friend has a 416 stroker and runs 6.4 in the 1/8 mile....he has large port commando heads


Dan

Anything you can Compare them to Eddie's, J heads etc

there is two..version..well now actually 3
there is a small 177cc intake runner version
with rocker stands cast in place.
its got killer comb. chambers and with porting can be an ecellent head...more expesive than an assembled eddie though.
then next is the larg port commando...its 188cc intake runner..and has larger bowls. the rocker stand mounts are machined off..so it will need the blocks to set up the rocker system.but will accept long valve combos better
i understand these heads are discontinued so ..the part number now refers to an iron casting...
i dont know if the iron is large or small runner though..
fwiw..
the large port heads can be ported to flow 320cfm..fwiw..
ive seen the small port version..go 290cfm..fwiw

cheapst

The part number I am refering to in the Mancini flyer is MRE 4876765PM

How do the Large port Commandos compare to W-2's?

Maybe RyanJ will chime in and explain, you can go to his web site and see the one's he did for me in the pictures.

I think the large port in a heavily ported job can be close to a big effort W2, not quite the flow but a better chamber and aluminum, also the LP Commando is way more expensive, thats why they got discoed, no sales so no one wants them right

The small port Commando shares the same chamber, exhaust port, intake bowl and short turn.
The difference is the intake runner. The pushrod pinch on the small port is .780" wide compared
to the LP at 1.018". The LP also has had the intrusive boss for the Magnum studs omitted from
their port core, even though it can be ground entirely away on the small port head.

.....Small Port Commando OOTB..........

.100"_____60.8
.200"____107.6
.300"____154.2
.400"____193.3
.500"____218.6
.550"____227.8
.600"____233.4
.650"____237.1*
.700"____239.1*

* slight turbulance

Tested with a MP 2.02" x 5.280" valve NO B/C

Here is the same port with only chamber work.

.100"_____63.5
.200"____125.9
.300"____178.2
.400"____210.6
.500"____225.6
.550"____231.3
.600"____235.9
.650"____237.0
.700"____238.2*

* slight turbulance

OEM entrance.

Novice port match was intentional. Only to get port entrance to
line up with my radius plate for standard SB port window.

Magnum stud boss. (Commandos are from the same castings as the aluminum Magnums)

Top side machined for LA style shaft rocker gear.

For comparison, here is a LP Commando with the same valve.

_________INTAKE_____________Exhaust

.100"____54.7________________60.2
.200"____95.7_______________107.1
.300"___141.9_______________142.8
.400"___191.4_______________161.3
.500"___229.8_______________166.8
.550"___241.5_______________167.2
.600"___252.5_______________168.4
.650"___259.4
.700"___263.6

MP 2.02/1.60 No BC OOTB

Note: Exhaust flow will be the same on the small port

EDIT: added a picture of LP Commando

Here's an Edelbrock RPM #6077 OOTB

..................IN............................EX

.100"_____63.7_________________54.4
.200"____122.0________________111.8
.300"____177.7________________152.0
.400"____218.7________________174.8
.500"____236.0________________186.7
.550"____238.3________________187.3

No valve job or short turn on these yet so, I don't have any final numbers.
I think they have more potential than the Edelbrock heads. They should have
moved the pushrod .250" and used T/A rocker gear.

These will get the pushrods sleeved.

Oh, and every one of the guides are too big......brand new.

i was gonna press fit a dowl in the pushrod bore.
and redrill the pushrod hole with stage 6 rocker offset..
although i may go to w2 offset because these rockers are still being made..
then lay back the pusrod pinch in the window to what ever moved the best air.
fwiw.

The pivot length is too long on any W-2 rocker I've tried.
Harland Sharp still makes the T/A set-up.

Vic,
Thanks for the pictures. Technical info is always good.

OK so here's the same port with the pushrod pinch opened up
from .780" to .965".....typical of a decent port match.

.100"_____62.1
.200"____125.3
.300"____181.5
.400"____220.6
.500"____235.3
.550"____239.0*
Backs up over .550"

* slight turbulance

Again, same port as last posted with the Magnum stud boss
cut out of the roof.

.100"_____63.1
.200"____126.3
.300"____186.5
.400"____229.3
.500"____246.5*
.550"____249.0*
.600"____250.1*
.650"____249.0*
.700"____242.0

* slight turbulance

I love seeing info like this, hard numbers for incremental changes.

Thanks Vic.

Oh cool......there's 2 of you.

I thought I'd put some stuff up that pertained to the original
poster's question. It's a waste of my time to clean the head
and flow it after every incremental change.

I'll just finish these up and move on to the next job.

I thought the information was great. Please continue and show the end results.

do you have the numbers of the CC's of the combustion chamber before and after port work by any chance???

thanks i apreciate learning alitle more this way

Keep at it Vic!

Ryan

Vic I really appreciate all the great info you give!
Please dont stop shareing because people are idiots.

I missed out on some idiots

I like thease heads and have a set of the aluminum magnums I am planning on running so I apreciate some real world info like this

I am not going to ruin this thread.
All i am saying is i dont want to see good info
disapear because of people being negative.

who's being negative?
i have sets of these..large ports
havent touched them yet..
if someone has data..by all means..

i dont have all the flow charts side by side.
i was asking if his opinion was that moving or removing the pushrod pinch was worth it..or not.?
I assume the "Idiot" question was directed at me..since iam the only one asking questions..or commenting on technical aspects..
I am no Idoit..
cheapst

no it was not directed at you. i would have said your name if it was directed at you.

Must of got edited? I did not read anything bad , then boom! Vic is mad for some reason with nothing to explain why.

For all the people who currently own a set of these Small Port Commandos or the aluminum
Magnums...........there seems to be a problem with making these thing flow any air.

Look at this picture. Apparently the thought was to run these exclusively with a hydraulic roller
cam as the pushrod holes are .205" further from the manifold surface than my nasty old OEM heads,
which incidentally, outflow these paper weights by 28 CFM.

By them being machined as such, places them deeper in the port. Which makes the transition
into the curved wall much more abrupt, upsetting the airflow in a bad way.

Without relocating the pushrod, I don't see them being a candidate for a serious race application.

Flow is 251.3 @ 500" right now.

Whats the deal on the exhaust port, I heard they were a fair amount too tight?

I think the engineer who came up with these might have stayed on from the AMC buy-out.
Him and his buddies probably got a good laugh out of this when Mopar approved it.

Honestly, it's not a bad port. At least it has a short turn.
The Large Port Commandos have the dual W-2 bolt pattern.

SP version is a mis-match to an OEM header. There's not
much you can do but, weld them up or use W-2 headers.

A few years ago I read that the large port commandos were the replacement for w5s

Good Info Vic, I sure am glad that I decided to go with the Lg port Commando's as the flow number's appear to not support what my effort's would require, look's as tho you have put out quite a bit of effort just to obtain what you have from the small port head, but like I have been told before,,,flow isn't everything, I would be real interested in how they work on the motor.

Different story on the LP heads Bill, as you already know.

.100"_____64.3
.200"____123.7
.300"____177.6
.400"____228.9
.500"____271.3
.600"____285.8
.550"____294.0
.650"____298.6
.700"____300.8

2.02" x 30º BC

These SP heads won't even compare as-is. The
pushrod pinch is really the only difference.

The rest of the port just puts too much demand on
that diverging wall.

Keep up the good work Vic, I really enjoy reading your post's.

Yes, please continue as I am actively porting my set and am looking for the info. Great read BTW.

cool...

Ok here are my thoughts...make sure the pushrod hole is not tapper'd.
turn up some aluminum stock, make dowls.
put some lock tight on the dowls and press
them into the factory pushrod holes.
then remachine new pushrod holes..
i was gonna offset them anyway..
then you can modify the port entry to accomidate
better air and hit your C/sa..#s

it sure seems to have taken alot to unshroud the valves...did you happen to cc them before and after? did i gain alot in cumb.chamber CC?

you had to press all new guides in the heads? ouch!
cheapst

Jim, do you have the small port heads?

I added clay behind the pushrod to smoothe the transition.
Port hangs on easily to .700" lift now but, flow is dismal
with 256.8 @ .700" This port should hit mid 260s @ .500" easy.

My mistake for posting any flow numbers, modified without a
decent valve job.

I'll post chamber volumes later.

Another view

actually i like seeing numbers before valve job.
you can back cut the valve sometimes to fix low lift numbers..if you loose a little when you port..

any way..i have large port heads..
i had small port heads..but sold them...
he still has them though ..i could buy them back...but i dont have an application for them.
i am going stroker/bigger...next motor...
if i determine the LP commandos wont do..ill be getting some indy heads.
cheapst.

MP 2.02" x 1.60" valves.

I think the 8CC removed from the chambers should help low lift numbers a lot. The low lift problem is the chamber wall is so close to the valve you simply can't flow much air through there. The best most trickest VJ in the world ain't going to gain as much as that valve clearance will After opening the chamber up then you will see nice gains from the VJ

Vic,
Stick with it, they will come around. I think putting "real world" info on here is very helpful. Sometimes in life things don't go exactly to plan, but by you posting this it allows others to make better choices. Keep up the good work, and again Thank You.

Rod

no doubt the valves are shrouded..
\even the eddies wil benifit from this.
hell..most heads will benifit..
\
thats not a terrible amount gain'd in CC's

Nice pics Vic Any thoughts on milling to the point where the intake valve is out of the chamber?

No......these heads are going on a pump gas 408" with 20 cc dished
pistons. Compression will be 10.4:1 as is.

For this car.

Ain't that something, mine are going in a 68 cuda

OK......my last test on the flowbench after opening
the pushrod pinch to 1.010" netted the following:

.100"_____62.9
.200"____127.0
.300"____187.9
.400"____229.1
.500"____251.3

Backs up over .500"

With valve job and a Ferrea 5050 2.02"

.100"_____66.2
.200"____119.3
.300"____176.5
.400"____231.6*
.500"____271.4*
.550"____280.3
.600"____285.2 346.5 fps @ push rod
.650"____285.2

Backs up over .650"

* Slight turbulance.

Same port but added a 30º back-cut

.100"_____68.0
.200"____132.0
.300"____187.6
.400"____240.1
.500"____273.5
.550"____282.9
.600"____282.9

Backs up over .600"

I will say this.....68 cfm @ .100" is the most I've ever seen from a 2.02" valve.
Must be the nice chamber work.

The push rod holes are getting plugged and relocated.

Just FYI, to anyone who has a set of these heads, might want to start mocking up rockers & checking geometry as MP made a machining error on some (alot from what I can tell) of the Commandos & machined the rocker pedestals to far forward in the head. Another quality MP part.

....ee..YIKES....