Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: Mike@440Source]
#3118906
02/04/23 05:35 PM
02/04/23 05:35 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,578
KOS
pro stock
|
pro stock
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,578
|
Hello everyone. This is my first post here, so I thought I'd post something as an icebreaker since I spend my days on the phone helping others. I get a few questions now and then from those who are looking at the Stealth heads and wonder if they can be ported to Max Wedge. I grabbed an old MW ported casting and rough-CC'd an intake port, doing the same for the current CNC offering. CC's are rough since I didn't have my plexiglass here at work. MW = 270ish, just in case someone wants to run a MW-sized non-raised runner head. I didn't think I'd be one of those guys, but here we are...mostly because what I'm building needs to look "correct".
Standard port Stealths are 255ish as advertised; you'll have to port them to MW if you wish to go this route vs buying TF270's or a set of Indy's.
Mike
what do they pickup in flow?
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: KOS]
#3119703
02/07/23 06:12 PM
02/07/23 06:12 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 96 Carson City
Mike@440Source
OP
member
|
OP
member
Joined: Dec 2022
Posts: 96
Carson City
|
Hello everyone. This is my first post here, so I thought I'd post something as an icebreaker since I spend my days on the phone helping others. I get a few questions now and then from those who are looking at the Stealth heads and wonder if they can be ported to Max Wedge. I grabbed an old MW ported casting and rough-CC'd an intake port, doing the same for the current CNC offering. CC's are rough since I didn't have my plexiglass here at work. MW = 270ish, just in case someone wants to run a MW-sized non-raised runner head. I didn't think I'd be one of those guys, but here we are...mostly because what I'm building needs to look "correct".
Standard port Stealths are 255ish as advertised; you'll have to port them to MW if you wish to go this route vs buying TF270's or a set of Indy's.
Mike
what do they pickup in flow? Depends on who is doing the MW port work and the flow bench being used, assuming it's being used correctly. Mike
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: Mike@440Source]
#3119860
02/08/23 08:40 AM
02/08/23 08:40 AM
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,103 Yes
sixpakdodge
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 4,103
Yes
|
Hello everyone. This is my first post here, so I thought I'd post something as an icebreaker since I spend my days on the phone helping others. I get a few questions now and then from those who are looking at the Stealth heads and wonder if they can be ported to Max Wedge. I grabbed an old MW ported casting and rough-CC'd an intake port, doing the same for the current CNC offering. CC's are rough since I didn't have my plexiglass here at work. MW = 270ish, just in case someone wants to run a MW-sized non-raised runner head. I didn't think I'd be one of those guys, but here we are...mostly because what I'm building needs to look "correct".
Standard port Stealths are 255ish as advertised; you'll have to port them to MW if you wish to go this route vs buying TF270's or a set of Indy's.
Mike
what do they pickup in flow? Depends on who is doing the MW port work and the flow bench being used, assuming it's being used correctly. Mike We're well aware of those variances...so I interpret your response as meaning "Not enough, but you can do it if you want".
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: Streetwize]
#3120005
02/08/23 03:30 PM
02/08/23 03:30 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,885 Pattison Texas
CSK
master
|
master
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,885
Pattison Texas
|
Just as with original max wedges, I'm sure the narrowing and rather severe port window angle is no doubt better than a standard port.....but is still limited by the lack of the raised roof and floor and the limited cross section due to the standard spring pocket and rocker arm geometry. This makes the transition to the bowl a pinch point.....but I suppose the MW logically increases the intake plenum volume and "charge" filling (or pushing through) the hole.
I always wondered where the crossover point between a low port Max wedge and say a raised standard window port like a TF 240 really shows up for a typical 550-650HP 500" combo.
It's a case where dry flow on a bench might show similar flow numbers....but in reality we know the suspended fuel doesn't 'turn' as easily as the air.
The stealth heads still look to be a great bargain, particularly when OEM sleeper appearance is a priority. 255 is a pretty decent port cc especially compared to a 906/452 port
I agree ^^^^ I have the Super Stealths they dont sell them anymore on my 512 street car, they use .650 offset intake rockers I made them Max w size no pinch , my old junk runs pretty good for what it is, it makes more power than I thought it would, very surprised for a non raised port head
1968 Charger COLD A/C Hilborn EFI 512ci 9.7 compression, Stealth heads, 4.10 gear A518 ODtrans 4100lb,10.93 full street car trim 2020 T/A 392 Stock 11.79 @ 114.5
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: sixpakdodge]
#3120048
02/08/23 07:16 PM
02/08/23 07:16 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,324 Prospect, PA
BSB67
master
|
master
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 4,324
Prospect, PA
|
Hello everyone. This is my first post here, so I thought I'd post something as an icebreaker since I spend my days on the phone helping others. I get a few questions now and then from those who are looking at the Stealth heads and wonder if they can be ported to Max Wedge. I grabbed an old MW ported casting and rough-CC'd an intake port, doing the same for the current CNC offering. CC's are rough since I didn't have my plexiglass here at work. MW = 270ish, just in case someone wants to run a MW-sized non-raised runner head. I didn't think I'd be one of those guys, but here we are...mostly because what I'm building needs to look "correct".
Standard port Stealths are 255ish as advertised; you'll have to port them to MW if you wish to go this route vs buying TF270's or a set of Indy's.
Mike
what do they pickup in flow? Depends on who is doing the MW port work and the flow bench being used, assuming it's being used correctly. Mike We're well aware of those variances...so I interpret your response as meaning "Not enough, but you can do it if you want". FWIW, Had MCH port my Eddys to their typical oversized "std." port. Then had them CNC port them to MW size. Then had them put in 2.19s. Kept testing along the way. I was kinda surprised how little they improved, and the 2.19s were worth about half of the total improvements
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: BSB67]
#3120196
02/09/23 11:24 AM
02/09/23 11:24 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,515 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,515
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
My .02 is......... With small port heads, like a steath or Ede Head......... the main reason one would bring them out to MW size would be to facilitate the use of a MW sized manifold. Not so much for the perceived big increase in flow from the head itself.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: Streetwize]
#3120340
02/09/23 07:39 PM
02/09/23 07:39 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,352 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,352
Bend,OR USA
|
I had two sets of Indy heads with Max Wedge ports, CNC 440-1 and a set of Max Wedge SR heads, there was 50 HP differences on my old pump gas Duster motor on the same dyno the same day. There was 65 HP difference on the 526 C.I. race motor with higher compression and race gas Both sets of heads were either 75.0 or 76.0 CC, CRS No other changes, same cam, same compression ratio, same intake and carb. same ignition and timing. More air and fuel makes more power.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: Streetwize]
#3120483
02/10/23 03:35 PM
02/10/23 03:35 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,424 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,424
Kalispell Mt.
|
Just as with original max wedges, I'm sure the narrowing and rather severe port window angle is no doubt better than a standard port.....but is still limited by the lack of the raised roof and floor and the limited cross section due to the standard spring pocket and rocker arm geometry. This makes the transition to the bowl a pinch point.....but I suppose the MW logically increases the intake plenum volume and "charge" filling (or pushing through) the hole.
I always wondered where the crossover point between a low port Max wedge and say a raised standard window port like a TF 240 really shows up for a typical 550-650HP 500" combo.
It's a case where dry flow on a bench might show similar flow numbers....but in reality we know the suspended fuel doesn't 'turn' as easily as the air.
The stealth heads still look to be a great bargain, particularly when OEM sleeper appearance is a priority. 255 is a pretty decent port cc especially compared to a 906/452 port
I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with a standard port, they are barely higher performance than a comparable SB head. A 906 barely outflows an X head, raw stealth barely out performs a raw eddy SBM head. Something with 440 CID deserves a MW size port even in a very mild application. If it don't make good TQ something else is wrong beside the port volume. Heck a 392 genIII hemi has bigger ports and they make plenty of TQ in grocery getters.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: HotRodDave]
#3120504
02/10/23 05:06 PM
02/10/23 05:06 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106 Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,106
Oregon
|
Just as with original max wedges, I'm sure the narrowing and rather severe port window angle is no doubt better than a standard port.....but is still limited by the lack of the raised roof and floor and the limited cross section due to the standard spring pocket and rocker arm geometry. This makes the transition to the bowl a pinch point.....but I suppose the MW logically increases the intake plenum volume and "charge" filling (or pushing through) the hole.
I always wondered where the crossover point between a low port Max wedge and say a raised standard window port like a TF 240 really shows up for a typical 550-650HP 500" combo.
It's a case where dry flow on a bench might show similar flow numbers....but in reality we know the suspended fuel doesn't 'turn' as easily as the air.
The stealth heads still look to be a great bargain, particularly when OEM sleeper appearance is a priority. 255 is a pretty decent port cc especially compared to a 906/452 port
I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with a standard port, they are barely higher performance than a comparable SB head. A 906 barely outflows an X head, raw stealth barely out performs a raw eddy SBM head. Something with 440 CID deserves a MW size port even in a very mild application. If it don't make good TQ something else is wrong beside the port volume. Heck a 392 genIII hemi has bigger ports and they make plenty of TQ in grocery getters. Standard port heads are good for 700+ hp with a good head like the Trick Flow. So nothing to sneeze at. They work just fine for stock block stroker motors.
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: AndyF]
#3120540
02/10/23 07:32 PM
02/10/23 07:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,715 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,715
Wichita
|
Just as with original max wedges, I'm sure the narrowing and rather severe port window angle is no doubt better than a standard port.....but is still limited by the lack of the raised roof and floor and the limited cross section due to the standard spring pocket and rocker arm geometry. This makes the transition to the bowl a pinch point.....but I suppose the MW logically increases the intake plenum volume and "charge" filling (or pushing through) the hole.
I always wondered where the crossover point between a low port Max wedge and say a raised standard window port like a TF 240 really shows up for a typical 550-650HP 500" combo.
It's a case where dry flow on a bench might show similar flow numbers....but in reality we know the suspended fuel doesn't 'turn' as easily as the air.
The stealth heads still look to be a great bargain, particularly when OEM sleeper appearance is a priority. 255 is a pretty decent port cc especially compared to a 906/452 port
I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with a standard port, they are barely higher performance than a comparable SB head. A 906 barely outflows an X head, raw stealth barely out performs a raw eddy SBM head. Something with 440 CID deserves a MW size port even in a very mild application. If it don't make good TQ something else is wrong beside the port volume. Heck a 392 genIII hemi has bigger ports and they make plenty of TQ in grocery getters. Standard port heads are good for 700+ hp with a good head like the Trick Flow. So nothing to sneeze at. They work just fine for stock block stroker motors. My ported Stealths work great with a little spray. 600 hp with a mild combo on the street is lots of fun and we regularly had the 250 nitrous jets in last year at the track. 300 tune in currently. I'm sure I'm creeping up on the limits of this stock block so standard port heads work fine for what I'm doing.
'63 Dodge 330 11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs. 10.01 @ 133mph with a 250 shot of nitrous an a splash of race gas. 1.36 60 ft. 3,700 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: AndyF]
#3120621
02/11/23 09:42 AM
02/11/23 09:42 AM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,715 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,715
Wichita
|
Yes you are.
I tell customers that std port heads are fine for stock blocks, good MW heads like CNC ported Indy heads or TF 270 heads should be paired with an aftermarket block. Customers hate to hear that advice since aftermarket blocks suck for Mopar guys. But anything over 700 or 750 hp starts to rattle the main caps and starts the process of cracking the main webs. It is just a matter of time before the block cracks. Might last a season, might last 3 or 4 before it lets go. I keep hearing that but we've been over 750 for a while now. We pulled it apart for a health and wellness check last winter. Bearings, main caps and bottom end looked fine. A few things I think help with longevity: It never sees over 6,000 rpm, it has a relatively lightweight Molnar rotating assembly, short Mahle pistons and I'm conservative with timing to keep it out of detonation.
'63 Dodge 330 11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs. 10.01 @ 133mph with a 250 shot of nitrous an a splash of race gas. 1.36 60 ft. 3,700 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: AndyF]
#3120687
02/11/23 01:56 PM
02/11/23 01:56 PM
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319 Puyallup, WA
StealthWedge67
master
|
master
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,319
Puyallup, WA
|
Yes you are.
I tell customers that std port heads are fine for stock blocks, good MW heads like CNC ported Indy heads or TF 270 heads should be paired with an aftermarket block. Customers hate to hear that advice since aftermarket blocks suck for Mopar guys. But anything over 700 or 750 hp starts to rattle the main caps and starts the process of cracking the main webs. It is just a matter of time before the block cracks. Might last a season, might last 3 or 4 before it lets go. I guess we’ll find out soon enough with my current build. Andy, you weighed in on my plans at the outset and thought it could eclipse the 700 mark, I’ve since then made an adjustment in cam specs, having Howards custom grind a stick real close to your 470-build article cam. My block is decked..020, so I ended up at 3.875 stroke & 468 cubes in my 400 block with TF270’s and a big 4150 up top. Great to see someone from Source posting here. I ran a set of Stealths for a dozen years and never had one issue with them. One of the best bang per buck purchases Ive ever made! I remember when I had MCH CNC them, they said they had a MW port program. I didn’t go that direction at the time because of intake selection. but iit was tempting. Here I am a few years later with a set of 270’s on the same low-deck block.
Last edited by StealthWedge67; 02/11/23 02:24 PM.
LemonWedge - Street heavy / Strip ready - 11.07 @ 120
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: HotRodDave]
#3120732
02/11/23 05:53 PM
02/11/23 05:53 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,169 CT
GTX MATT
master
|
master
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,169
CT
|
Just as with original max wedges, I'm sure the narrowing and rather severe port window angle is no doubt better than a standard port.....but is still limited by the lack of the raised roof and floor and the limited cross section due to the standard spring pocket and rocker arm geometry. This makes the transition to the bowl a pinch point.....but I suppose the MW logically increases the intake plenum volume and "charge" filling (or pushing through) the hole.
I always wondered where the crossover point between a low port Max wedge and say a raised standard window port like a TF 240 really shows up for a typical 550-650HP 500" combo.
It's a case where dry flow on a bench might show similar flow numbers....but in reality we know the suspended fuel doesn't 'turn' as easily as the air.
The stealth heads still look to be a great bargain, particularly when OEM sleeper appearance is a priority. 255 is a pretty decent port cc especially compared to a 906/452 port
I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with a standard port, they are barely higher performance than a comparable SB head. A 906 barely outflows an X head, raw stealth barely out performs a raw eddy SBM head. Something with 440 CID deserves a MW size port even in a very mild application. If it don't make good TQ something else is wrong beside the port volume. Heck a 392 genIII hemi has bigger ports and they make plenty of TQ in grocery getters. People are scared they will loose torque, then wonder why they can’t make more HP, give up and build a BBC with rectangular ports…
Now I need to pin those needles, got to feel that heat Hear my motor screamin while I'm tearin up the street
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: GTX MATT]
#3120739
02/11/23 06:13 PM
02/11/23 06:13 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,424 Kalispell Mt.
HotRodDave
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 12,424
Kalispell Mt.
|
Just as with original max wedges, I'm sure the narrowing and rather severe port window angle is no doubt better than a standard port.....but is still limited by the lack of the raised roof and floor and the limited cross section due to the standard spring pocket and rocker arm geometry. This makes the transition to the bowl a pinch point.....but I suppose the MW logically increases the intake plenum volume and "charge" filling (or pushing through) the hole.
I always wondered where the crossover point between a low port Max wedge and say a raised standard window port like a TF 240 really shows up for a typical 550-650HP 500" combo.
It's a case where dry flow on a bench might show similar flow numbers....but in reality we know the suspended fuel doesn't 'turn' as easily as the air.
The stealth heads still look to be a great bargain, particularly when OEM sleeper appearance is a priority. 255 is a pretty decent port cc especially compared to a 906/452 port
I honestly don't know why anyone would bother with a standard port, they are barely higher performance than a comparable SB head. A 906 barely outflows an X head, raw stealth barely out performs a raw eddy SBM head. Something with 440 CID deserves a MW size port even in a very mild application. If it don't make good TQ something else is wrong beside the port volume. Heck a 392 genIII hemi has bigger ports and they make plenty of TQ in grocery getters. People are scared they will loose torque, then wonder why they can’t make more HP, give up and build a BBC with rectangular ports… I prefer a large high flowing port and shorter cam duration than needing to use a larger cam to get the same power out of a smaller port. It just makes for a more street friendly engine in my opinion.
I am not causing global warming, I am just trying to hold off a impending Ice Age!
|
|
|
Re: Stealth Heads, Max Wedge vs Std Port
[Re: HotRodDave]
#3120746
02/11/23 06:27 PM
02/11/23 06:27 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,204 PA.
pittsburghracer
"Little"John
|
"Little"John
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 20,204
PA.
|
The Stealth head was designed as a performance replacement for a stock head which it does a great job of. It can easily flow over 300 cfm with the valves it comes with after some port work. A 906 head can be ported to over 300cfm too but they start getting a little thin. A max wedge port opening isn’t a magic bullet to turn it into a TrickFlow or Indy head. We already have that area covered well.
1970 Duster Edelbrock headed 408 5.984@112.52 422 Indy headed small block 5.982@112.56 mph 9.42@138.27
Livin and lovin life one day at a time
|
|
|
|
|