W9 port developement continues

Just wondering how much would this type of deal would cost if someone had new w9 heads?

hahaha...WELL...I have been working on this developing this one hole since back in 2010....the first flow test was 9-10-2010 and the port flowed right around 380...i have actually thousands of hours in this port and that still does not guarantee that it will make power even though it flows a lot...I would be affraid to charge someone a whole bunch of money to get their heads done and then the engine is a dog!
Until I can verify that the heads will make power I would prefer to keep them to myself.....that is the main reason I do this anyway...I enjoy the chase...trying to figure out what and why about the airflow in the port....velocity is great!...flow is great! the chamber is small and seems as though it should be efficient but until a whole set is done and tested...intake will affect airflow as well...still waiting on mine then a whole other set of tests will need to take place....it cannot be said if they will make 1100 or 500.......time will tell...THAT being said....early a.m. test today has port VERY near 470cfm albeit around 1.000" of lift.....

my guess is that youll take your 470cfm port and it will flow 410-420 when someone verifies it

you need to send it to dwayne and have him post the results

Well my 380cfm port flowed 380 on my bench and someone else's.....I knew there would be doubters.....but I can make it flow 410 in my sleep......thanks for expressing your opinion.....

It flows just under 79% of range six(verified on my bench to be 592 @ @25" or using a .997 correction to obtain cfm capability at 28" would be 590......79% of 590.......you do the math.....)again.....thanks for your opinion....

I just checked out your website...I see that you have capability to digitize and cnc....so it is possible that you may end up seeing my head anyway. I have been looking to find someone with these capabilities that would be interested in doing other than their in house work. Seems as though most people with these machines either have a backlog of customers or just arent interested in doing the job for someone on a one-off level....or if they do the price is ridiculous. As I mentioned...if you have been folloeing this thread...I have been working on this design for over two years..I have had ups and downs....initial test in 2010 was around 380...I was hoping for 400.....I kept setting small goals and when I would reach them I would push for more....somewhere along that timeline it became a quest to see just how far I could push the port within the factory parameters...I will admit that it is more than just making the hole bigger...comparatively it isn't an overly large port.....as can be proved by the velocity...it has an average calculated velocity of near 335fps.....local measured velocities are much higher...through the throat/valve a little slower....there are some contours within the port that have had LARGE effects on the flow and also its quality....changing said contours can drastically alter both aforementioned and can drop the flow to the range of 430ish.....Thgis is exactly the reason I was trying to find someone to digitize and copy once the port is finished...whenever that may be....I feel that it will be very hard if not impossible to duplicate...at least in some sort of a timely and efficient manner...a whole set of heads by hand.....mind you that only preliminary exhaust work was done so there is a whole other hole that needs research and testing first. So I apologize if I may have been a bit rude...I understand your reluctance...but I have dedicated a large part of my life to this over the course of the last few years..I don't claim to have just sat down with a grinder in hand, spent a few hours making it bigger and achieve 460+ cfm...there have been A LOT of LONG days, late nights, early mornings and WHOLE weekends spent testing, grinding, filling, testing, starting over.......again and again and again....the thumbscrew onthe top of the brand new dial indicator I bought when I started this head has a divot of nearly .125" worn into it from the valve actautor.....So again..I do really respect both your opinion and your reluctance....but it is not without just a small amout annoyance...I hope you can understand.
Respectfully,

Gary

Obviously, there is far more to a race winning head than a peak flow number.....but what you have managed so far is very big. If it works out (and I hope it does), the capabilites are impressive.

An max effort, 4.250 x 4.00, 2x4 at 9500+ should be well over 1100hp.

Good luck with the project.

Well like you said.....there is more to it than just peak flow numbers...but thank you for your support!

Actually being developed for a 2x4 468 on e-85....4.185 4.250.....we will see...

no offense taken,,, ive just seen this often in my 20 years of doing heads,, everybody in the country,, big name or little cant get close to your numbers,, usually ports are down so far from claimed numbers they arent what the pros or usually people get,, but maybe youre the guy who disproves that

p-5 heads dont flow that much, an inline head with pushrods where they need to be,,,, hard to believe you could get those numbers,,, id like to see it,, if they flowed those numbers,, id do that job for free

I have been playing with heads on my own for 25 years give or take....I have read, watched, listened to everything I could get my hands...I always took all I could from all this but never held anything for gospel....if we all only did what we know was pro en in the past then that would be where we stayed....I always questioned everything and wanted to find out for myself if it worked or not....then wanted to know why. I was never afraid to trash a perfectly food and expensive head just to.play around.....when the CV-SP heads first came out I bought a set of 330's just to trash....when I first started doing dirt track heads as a kid I did things everyone else considered taboo and said wouldn't work. They were 9:1 358's with 1" in from seat porting allowed....650 carb on methanol.....when I started they were making on average about 435 HP.....heads....at that time I used a 110.....were flowing around 125....I did a few sets and shortly they were going near 165 and the best engine we did made around 575hp at right near 7200....just were the pinch 'said' they would and made just under 500 ft/lbs.....all from what most people said wouldnt work.....that was about 1989.....these engines would walk the rest of the field and in no time have almost a lap on everyone else....and again....that was what EVERYONE ELSE said wouldn't work and very limited porting...my point is why did they all say it wouldn't work....because that is what they were told...I wasn't afraid to see for myself....and it worked....I don't think I am anything special....I just am not afraid to try what sometimes to me even doesn't seem like it should work.....even bad results teach us something....either it works or not...if we can get past this then all we can do is learn....the port is DEFINITELY different...but so far it has proven to work....although finished is a long way off....

The port actually does not like a lot of unshrouding.....move the head on the bench so the valve moves off the bore wall and flow drops SIGNIFICANTLY...

give me some more time and I will hold you to that freebie!

Like I said before...the port is not excessively large....right around 300cc....it is definitely in the shape.....and best results are not always produced by removing material.....

If it's not top secret, what size valve???

And there will be no converter behind this.....

Larger than most......wink

Large valve and large throat(as evidenced by the low lift flow being off as compared to other heads....but taking off from around .700" lift on)...bowl not excessively large, chamber quite small but both shapes making a lot of difference....

I believe the P5 would get there....and quite easily....pay attention to the bias of the P5....and the P7.....air does not know through what kind of head it is flowing unless you tell it.....and even then how would it know if you were lying.....?...

I was wondering what valve angle are you using to get these great numbers and how much did you move the guides over to make it work? A huge valve with 1.00" lift will almost hit the side of the cylinder wall killing flow... I can't wait to see a complete set on a running engine. My W-9s flow a lot less than most "experts" heads do, 30+ cfm less, but they are almost always 3-5 tenths or more slower than me and with way bigger engines to boot! Not trying to be too negative, I just want to see it at the track, that's where it really matters. Good luck and please keep us posted.

I would love to see this head on my bench if it can do what you say.

I agree....if you read my posts you will see that that is what I keep saying.....even though they move some air this really means nothing until proven....thanks!

All Superflow flowbenches should flow within a few cfm of each other if they are calibrated...which mine is... regardless of altitude, temp, humidity etc....if your bench is calibrated I would suspect our results would be similar....I do this for personal satisfaction and am simply sharing my results as others have done.....I do not intend to be braggadocious or disrespectful to others.....I respect their efforts and results...obviously I wish that I would have some of the low lift flow numbers they have attained but I have not been able to quite reach them.....there is more to airflow than theory or all our ports.would be perfect and the same....I believe in letting the air tell me what it wants to do rather than vice versa.....perhaps I am wrong but that is where I have seen the greatest strides in improvement....

the low and mid lift numbers are in your valve, valve job angles, and chamber

im sure you have a 55 degree seat or steeper on that to get those numbers,, with hard coating the valves ive run as much as 60 degree seats,, maybe you have that,,, which hurts low lift bad...

its just your claims are off the charts,, nobody is trying to say you arent qualified to port a head or whatever,, its just unheard of to beable to get a port in that head,, that big,, to flow that amount of air

and to the guy who asked about how much you moved the guides,, or how big of a valve,, he must not have read that earlier you said you didnt do any of that,, the head is mechanically as recieved from mopar..

im doing a d-3 ford program with a 2.250 int valve on a 4.165 bore for a nhra comp project,,, if i get the kind of numbers you claim out of a better designed head,, ill be great!!! 373 inches,, 450cfm,, should be enough to make 1040 hp at 9500rpm

You are correct.....55 seat, large throat....in the area of 95-96%.....not concentric so that is an estimate....and I never claimed to be a head porter....just a hobby....and u take no offense to any of the debate on here....I am not a big proponent of big low lift numbers anyway...but if I was inflating my numbers on purpose you could bet they would be higher...I know very little compared to some of the best out there I just like to say....why not....and give it a try...I won't patronize you by wishing you luck on your endeavor......wink

As for "changes" to the factory head....I do not want to mislead.....the valve is not 'stock' and the head is rolled....that is a whole other topic of debate....but there was no welding, moving guides etc.....I wanted to push the head but within the confines of the casting and something that someone could do in their garage....most do not have the capability to change valve angles or offset guides at home.....

Good Job Hope to see final Numbers On the BENCH and on the Track.

It just always amazes me that people forget what & where these heads came from and what they have done in the PAST and a Distant past at that.

410" Alcohol Sprint Cars (750-850hp)
NHRA ProStock Truck 358cui and 7.50/180mph 1/4 miles Turning 10,500rpms.
Nascar Cup and Busch Series 358cui.

I have a set of W9-RP (I know they are a Bit Different) but the shop that ported them claimed 400-425cfm depending on which bench they were on. Also told me I could probably get another 25cfm if I sent them to Reher-Morrison and let them run their W9-RP CNC Program on them.

I personally would like to see what the W9s are really capable of. Like a Few others I have a NIB set under my bed. LOL!

I only know of 3 small block heads that come even close to the W9's. SB2's, Mozez, and P7.

I wouldn't even consider the P5-Hemi in the running. How available is it and did they ever fix the Leaking Issues.

"and to the guy who asked about how much you moved the guides,, or how big of a valve,, he must not have read that earlier you said you didnt do any of that,, the head is mechanically as recieved from mopar.."

I did read the entire post and I personally don't see any way to get those kinds of numbers without moving/changing the "factory" paramteters. Rolling/angle milling helps but you need more than that. Next you will say it uses 3/8 stem valves... lol Just kidding, keep up the good work. It is nice to see a thread dedicated to hard core smallblock cylinder head developement.

Nope..no .375 stems.....and you are correct....rolling the head has very little impact on flow.....

Thanks for your support...and thanks for supporting us all.....noticed you serve....thanks again!

It's good to see the critics and the criticized go about this without things getting personal.
It's so not Yellow and/or ST of you (and Jeff and Dennis) and I for one appreciate it.
I don't recall any SB inline-valve head for any brand matching your high lift numbers. I'm looking forward to your on-track verification of these. I've never done any W8 or W9's, but always "heard" the W8's were better for a "big" application. Do you think you have enough material in critical places to just digitize and CNC it? One usually has to allow just a bit of cushion due to core shift.
And just wondering, if not another secret, have you modified your port for a longer valve?
No matter, good to see civilized dialog going on instead of chest beating.

really no sense in getting personal...if I was afraid of the comments then I shouldnt have publicly posted in the first place....

The port hasn't been alter for a longer valve...the issue with CNC'ing is one I will need to work out when I get to that point...I am well aware that there are some thin areas right now that could prove to be an issue....8's would be better as they have thicker castings and would be more forgiving...not necessarliy sure that making the port larger would be beneficial but that would also be an option with them....unfortunately I have a set of 9's so that is what I will be transferring the design to....one way or another...once I am satisfied with the results....

what type of bench are you using?...if it is a Superflow(or Superflow based design) there is no need to correct....a properly calibrated Superflow will provide the same results regardless of altitude, humidity, temp etc...they are basically self correcting. If you mean flow @28" mathematically corrected for 60" then the number should be nearer 660....450@60" mathematically corrects to 307@28"...I realize that the higher depression may/will cause conditions in the port that may/will change flow levels just wondering exactly what you meant?

Any updates?

I am still interested in an update.

Not looking good on that update....

Sorry ...I just saw these most recent posts. I have not been playing with them for a while ...I am pretty satisfied with the port design as it was when this post was written. I recently bought a set of raw w8 castings and my plan was to see if the port would be easier to adapt to the 8's over the 9's. Once winter sets in I plan to dig them back out... as well as the untouched blue plug 5's I picked up and the 2's on the car right now......work schedule permitting.....thanks for you interest!