I think I still have that Hot Rod issue, 1988 or 89. They built a 496 with his tricked 049's and a mild cam and made over 600 hp.

Believe it or not, there were some guys running NHRA AA/FA (that's nitro burning supercharged Altereds) in the late 1960s that used reworked 1968 366 cid Tall Deck Truck oval port heads (p/n 3935404) instead of the rectangle port heads. The reason was they were running 80% Nitro and the closed combustion chambers on the high performance rectangle port heads were really bad about detonation with Nitro unless you turned the timing WAY back, which of course would kill power. The 366 truck heads had large open combustion chambers before the 1969 ZL-1 open chambers heads came out. The 366 heads also had thicker walls between the combustion chamber and the cooling jackets than the later ZL-1 open chamber heads which were prone to cracking using heavy Nitro fuel loads.

@@corvettejohn4507 That's cool. Racers always know what really works and what doesn't.

@@scottm7341 That's probably the one. Before Richard Holdener I got most of my info from tech articles in magazines.

I think I read the same article. Lingenfelter was a fan of the 049 and 781 heads on street type engines. Remember the 496 he did with a Comp Cams 288R? I basically duplicated that with a 433. I think I'll Google the article and read it again

I remember reading a Article out of Hotrod Magazine inthe 90s that on a chassis Dyno a intake and cam and Headers where good for 120 horsepower on a chassis Dyno on a 1 ton dually one of the guys ran as a tow pig.

Yeah to many people just think about upping to high compression when you can simplu ad a Cam with lots of lobe Seperation and gain a whole bunch of Dynamic Compression which is 100 times better then just high compression pistons, because you're now compressing more volume with a larger displacment, vs the high Compression pistons you just made you displacment smaller in reality you might have even lost HP mid and high and gained barley anything down low. A Cam with much more lober seperation you will gain HP from bottom to top. With Boost a Long intake duration wide cam lobe seperation is key tomaking very good power at low boost levels.

@@trxtech3010 compression does not change volume. A 454 with 8-1 still is 454 with 15-1 compression. You make no power unless you have compression

@@jbaker8871 Yeah it actually does make your displacment smaller the higher the compression becomes, the smaller your engine becomes, may not by a lot however; Say if you have -15 CC domed pistons to increase compression in a 454 you just went from a 7.4L to a 7.2L, the only thing it gained was throttle response and low end torque possibly lost some HP but now you got a stump puller. If you actually knew what you were talking about you would know why I mentioned dynamic compression, your dynamic compression increases when you have a camshaft with more lobe separation. Biggest mistake everyone makes is "I put a huge lift cam and higher high compression in it" Better choice is a Big cam that has lots of cam lobe separation, slightly higher compression OR dished pistons and of course port work. High Compression is not the magic way to gain HP. Ask any REAL engine biulder. They will tell you the same thing.

Just adding compression to a mid 1970s 454 ads horsepower and torque across the board. A tighter cam load separation at .050" for instance 107 makes more raw horsepower and torque for just engine power. And the wider load separation 114 makes a little less horsepower and torque on engine But the wider lobe separation is far better for a power adders blowers, superchargers or nitrous and larger engines. Also raising compression and using pump gas makes more horsepower, torque and better fuel mileage. Because a engine that is 8.5 to 1 compression it's like dead cylinders versus a motor that's at 9.7 to 1 with iron heads or 10.5 to 1 with aluminum heads on pump gas. On pump gas with same engines you have to open throttle up more to run the same speed with lower compression. And if you've seen the results over the years guys with 15.1 or 16.1 compression. They don't make much gain at all on nitrous very little. At these high compression levels the engine is already so efficient their almost nothing left on nitrous.

YES it is, the engineers have addressed the old good port bad port issue nicely. GM finally got with the program with the 8.1 but dropped the ball with all the smaller metric stuff and thin wall castings and heads. On a side note, always wondered why GM went with the Olds block for the 5.7 diesel instead of a 366 block? It wouldn't have made any difference on the weight simply on the issue of installing BBC's in any of the other car frames ! Better head bolt pattern compard to 10 bolts only even with 2 missing in the BBC's

The square port heads are big for that compression ratio IMHO Stick car or 4000+ converter 7k rpm

@@DevastationMtrsports Thanks for sharing everything in my motor will run at high rpms, good rods and Malhe pistons balanced with Howard's lifters and cam to perform up top,4l80 fully manual 😀, Actually plan on a 250 shot ,running a 35 spline 411 pos Trac 😀

@@ronaldlewis2041 sadly I have stock rods and heavy TRW pistons.. late 90s build.. no budget for rods or a roller. Hope to do an updated rotating assembly W/roller cam next summer

Great head for a 396

Thanks for sharing I'm doing a set of peanut ports following David vizArds advice

Would a valve size increase have a dramatic impact on flow?

@@MrScottt28 think there can be a good gain on the intake side using 2.19 valves if your wanting to go all the way. Vortec pro has a few good videos on KZfaq too

I have a set of stock L29 heads, bought them for $80, I’ve considered removing the swirl ramp myself, my only hesitation is I feel like low speed velocity would be compromised, I could be wrong…

@port nut Or any stock head

@port nut Money

Yes we do! I did a mild port job on my son’s 2.06 valve 236 heads for temporary use til I got some 781s and after the car went 11.60s and I was quite surprised how good they worked when we took the motor out to freshen it up I took the 236 and had 2.19 valves installed and put the heads on a flow bench before and after the valve change! I also brought along a stock 2.06 valve 781 to test, my home ported 2.06 valve peanut port head flowed better than the 781 up to .500 lift but the 781 waked away after .500 lift, so one of Richard’s dyno comparison videos between a good peanut port head with real porting and a 2.19 valve compared to a similar 781

Wait....squirrels like peanuts, I see a conflict of interest 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@t.s.racing 😃👉🏻 🥜 👉🏻🐿✅😂

Same here. The Vortec chambers are really efficient compared to the older heads.

@@carltonegarage8624 the late vortec big block heads are just tuned up version of the old big oval heads. they flow a little better but not much, and it take massive grinding to smother out the widows peak in in the heart shaped chamber more not much more flow.

I'd like to see someone hide a turbo under a high-rise manifold, feed it exhaust through the exhaust crossovers in the heads, and make it a complete bolt-on system. They'd have to conceal the dump tube somehow, but it could be done. Maybe through a custom front cover? Just have low enough compression and a properly-sized turbo to not need aftercooling, or just hyper-aggressively cool the heads right down to ambient.

I have a set of peanut port heads that I installed 2.19” intakes and 1.88” exhausts, I ported them to fit a oval port intake manifold. I had a 78 Suburban that I was going to build a 454 for but never did. The heads are new boat “take off heads”. I would be curious to see how they flow and work on a 454 for maybe a tow truck or something similar.

I did exactly that to a set of stock oval port heads and a .030 over 454 with a cc hydraulic roller.246 @.050/ .646 lift on a 110 and a rpm air gap and a 750cfm carb. It made 550hp/ 550tq. Peak power was at 5800 and torque was at 4500. Needed a bigger carb but the AED 950 wouldn’t run properly.

@@scottsigmon926 my 1978 BIG10 454 came with 781 oval port heads and I cut them for 2.19”&1.88” valves and ported them. I used a Edelbrock performer RPM intake with a 850 Holley and a small Crane solid roller cam which I used to pull a 26’ enclosed race car trailer. Ordered the truck new and still have it.

@@noahdunaway That’s awesome, I have an 80 GMC heavy half, I’d love to build a similar big block for it.

did you mean 580 lb-ft?

@@richardholdener1727 no sir those are correct numbers we have the Dyno chart. I can get all exact engine specs if you would like them. I greatly admire your work sir. You're a hero in my neck of the woods!

I THINK SMALLER WITH THE SAME FLOW IS BETTER

hope this was the day to saw that you got most of that instead of complaining about not getting a small part of it-think glass is 2/3 full

The hot ticket for bracket cars used to be a 496 with oval heads and the square port intake. Illogical, but it won races...

IF a guy like vortecpro did them they would run well. Most DIY guys porting peanuts would regret not going t oa larger oval port.

@@gordocarbo so how much faster you think I would go with 781s over my 236 heads on my junk 454 ? High 10s ? And i didn’t even have a valve job done on my peanut ports ! What would I run if vortech pro ported my heads ? Mid 10s?

@@gordocarbo kzfaq.info/get/bejne/grqVm6l7udC4mXk.htmlsi=Ul35StoFgedAu7AV Here is my 454 with peanut ports that I ported in my garage, 2.06 valves, .540 lift summit 228 238@50 hyd cam , winters rectangle port intake , qjet carb, 2 1/8 headers 9to1ish compression, and no machine shop work the heads still have the factory valve job!

​@@operatingengineerYou could port the peanut heads to flow what a stock 781 or 049 will flow. Hell of alot easier to just start with the bigger oval port heads & add bigger valves & bowl blend. Plenty of bigblock Chevys running mid to low 10s NA with oval port heads. Porting iron bigblock heads will take all year.

@@thereluctantgearhead4544 totally agree! The point of this motor was for my son to learn how to race as an upgrade to the stock 238 he raced the year before, this motor was just a bunch of junk laying around and all new parts were the cheapest I could buy, i never intended or tried to port a peanut head out to the size of a rectangle port or even a big oval! All I did was bowl port and clean up the intake runners and get rid of the ridge at the intake port entrence , the exhaust ports were not touched and I kept the 2.06 valves because these heads were of a motor home with VERY low miles so I didn’t even do a valve job! I wasn’t concerned with the port matching because I’m using a winters rectangle port intake on peanut ports 😅 and FYI I put my cleaned up 236 with 2.06 valves on a flow bench and I also brought a stock 781 head with no porting and that also still had 2.06 valves, my peanut port head out flowed the stock 781 all the way to .500 lift then the 781 walked away ! The take away is for a small cam 5000 rpm street car or truck motor the 236 head is an awesome inexpensive option! With a qjet, winters intake, summit 1302 cam this combo went 11.60s @113 as seen here kzfaq.info/get/bejne/grqVm6l7udC4mXk.htmlsi=Z0JL9GRd46srLXTb

the max numbers were at higher lifts than the cam

Ported Factory Aluminum Rectangle Port ZL-1 heads.

@@corvettejohn4507 Thanks.

good basic set-up......like the way it use to be!

the intake runners in the intake manifold are also different lengths-as (likely) are the headers

@@richardholdener1727 back in the old days they weren’t as well matched. I remember reading and article about a guy who built a 427 for a 60’s vette that he raced at Bonneville. They went into some detail about all the work he did, porting wise, to get everything balanced on the intake side. If I remember correctly, and this was in the mid 7’s, that it was no easy task. But that was a few years back, and there were no aftermarket heads for anything. Intakes were basic compared to today. As a side note, my HS Auto Shop was building 454 Ford Tunnel Port motors based on a 427 block and 428 heads. My senior yer we built a 454 Chevy to compete against the customer we were building the FE’s for. Our engine went boom on night one of the dirt track season. And we all spent time working on that motor. We are even polished the lifter valley and bottom end for better oil return. Damn! The year before we had built a 10.90 comp car out of a 66 Chevy II with a pinched out 283. That little 292 took us to the finals round where we lost. 10.89 to 10.93. Yup, breaking out sucks!

lots of oval ports will make power at 7200

THNK-THE 357S WOULD NOT BE GOOD FOR THIS SMALL 468-EVEN WITH A BIG BLOWER

AFR 357 baddest ever you say? UM, yeah, not even close. We had heads that flowed over 100 CFM more than those back in the mid '90's. Now they have BBC heads in the 600cfm range. You could run the 357 on this size motor blown but you would need a lot more cam for a PSI or high helix14-71. Usually, a motor with that size blower and this cubic inch would be for some type of class racing with rules for cubic inch to weight. Also, you would want to increase the bore size to get more flow and shorten the stroke to get to the size. Without a rule advantage or limitation, there are much better (bigger) combos to do.

Depending on cam, intake ,compression, bore / stroke, carb CFM , fuel pressure, that motor can be 700 hp N A. Torque monster

thnx for the offer-but not really necessary-my next test will be ported peanut ports

less power with all of them

pp heads would be ideal with the old 218 high energy cam dual plane for a mild driver with lots of torque

how different they rev?

@@richardholdener1727 any benefits and if it's worth it. Same everything just the longer rod and piston compression height. Guess it don't matter what engine you do it on but a bbc would be great! Thanks for all you do either way. Great channel!

I think you deserve a set of the AFRs. I'm sure you would maintain reliability and just think of the weight savings!

What factory intake are you running? Sounds like an intake swap would free up a lot of potential.

I am using the factory 375 hp dual plane with a 1 inch open spacer. I have one of the old single plane manifolds where the carb sits at an angle but I have never used it.

How much does your chevelle weigh? I had a similar set up except 702 heads (oval closed chamber) in a ‘72 C10 that weighed 4500 lbs and ran 8.2 eighth mile.

My Chevelle weighted 3520 without driver. I have added power steering since then so it probably weighs a little more. My big problem was traction until I bought a set of 295/65 ET Street radials. It still spins a little but is much better. Sounds like you ran a really good time with your truck.

I've spoken to Eric-he does good stuff

. . . Ok, let me get this straight. You're telling me Edelbrock bothered themselves to make a Peanut style head AND YET THE M.F's can't make a high-flow, aluminium head for the 90* Chevy 4.3L V6 ? THE BALLS ! ☹🤦‍♂👎

@@GIGABACHI not a head just an intake.

@@jnljnl8485 oh, well, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks for clearing that up. 👍 EDIT: It's right there in his post, FFS. 🤦‍♂ I gotta stop using YT when I'm sick and tired. My reading comprehension apparently disappears at the same time.

@@GIGABACHI they made several heads to fix the problem of the v6 chevy. I think Bill Jenkins worked on that little engine with some rather impressive results.

True man and by looking at them you would thank...dam what a big chamber.....just not many out there and most dont know of them,your right man....I have a nice virgin 71 set I pulled from a 402 over 30 year ago where I traded a set of 702,s for....nice you mentioned them man.

I agree lower or stock compression and smaller cams. Peanut heads would do better in a lot of lower RPM towing and street builds.

10

Ran into this running my chevelle years ago with my 427.....most said to run 049/781 big valves ported and I did with a 580/600 crane solid lift......before roller was the thing....ran great on the street and strip for 3900 lbs..3;90 gear.....but the top end times was not the same as the old timers stock square port racers running 11,s on factory stuff......tried jetting/biggere fuel line/taking hood off ect. but like the ol timers said...you running out of air on big end son!! those ovals were great on street 1/8 mile........but TRUE racing like you said,thembig blocks wanna breath on the top end with them heads if your a heel raiser!

it still works

are the 1973 head oval port?

Yes they are and they are ported

10:1

@@richardholdener1727 awesome thanks. That's good power for a relatively moderate low compression. I was thinking you were going to say 11 or 11.5

You mean LeBron can't walk right through your ports?

Yeah, a big motor with poor low end torque still usually has enough torque to make 2 small blocks jealous. I had a rec port headed 454 in my 70 Corvette for a while 25years ago. It was pretty high strung but occasionally I would miss first when stopping and put it in 3rd. It would still pull away from a stop with plenty of get up and go. I did sell the 088s to a guy restoring an LS6 Chevelle and replaced them with a set of worked over 049s but I also replaced the cam and intake so the performance I picked up was a combination of things.

@@1967davethewave I had a set 390 oval port heads on my old 402 bb they make plenty of torque. If I ever decided to pull off my 088 heads I'm going with probably some AFR 265 or Brodix RR

rec ports will always be down to oval ports down low (even on a 496)

@@richardholdener1727 I agree, but I'll still keep my 600 foot pounds with my rectangular port heads.

@@richardholdener1727 Lingenfelter proofed that years ago and is right! Thanks Richard for this video man!

It would be almost no difference octane wise because aluminum heads detonate less and allow about a point higher compression vs cast iron anyways.

@@EricFixalot Exactly my point.

Thats what I thought , smaller chamber higher compression= more power. Wounder what 049 s would do with 10: 1 compression

It is the last 3 numbers of the casting number. Common on early 70's truck engines.

please search 049 BBC heads

THE CAN AM MOTORS WERE BIGGER THAN 468 AND PORTED REC PORTS WON'T DO WHAT THE AFR 265 HEADS DID ON THIS MOTOR-WE ALREADY KNOWTHEY FLOW ENOUGH TO SUPPORT 600+HP WITH A BIG CAM

@@richardholdener1727 Can Am motor size depended upon what year ('68-'72) you are talking about. The Can Am BBC started at 430, then went to 465, 495, and 510. 465 is pretty close to 468.

​@@richardholdener1727 Richard, I have an article from Competition Press and Autoweek from 4 Oct 1969. In it, George Bolthoff who built McLarens engines talks about the M8B's 430 cid engine having 650hp. He also mentions what he does to the heads. Another data point, Al Bartz had a blueprinted 1968 Can Am 430 with closed chamber heads making 615hp on his dyno in 1968. It was in Petersen's Complete Book of Engines #4. I also have a Chevrolet dyno graph from around '69-'70 showing pulls from a Can Am 430 and a Can Am 465. The 430 made more peak HP at 675hp @ 7,600 rpm and the 465 made 660hp @ 6,400 rpm. Of course these engines had full race cams, Lucas fuel injection with ram tubes, 12:1 cr, and were revved up high, but it shows the potential of the vintage rectangle heads with some porting. Obviously, the new aftermarket heads flow much better and with higher port velocity.

i have not tested those kits

@@richardholdener1727 do you have any experiance with the ebay kits at all ? seems like the better choice would be the on3 kit from hpp since they are based out of texas and have probably better support

yes-but is your current gen 5 manifold designed for the stock gen 5 peanut port heads?

@@richardholdener1727 yes i believe so, it had stock heads

I have not

be cool to test that

Of the carb, and just screams when I get into the other 2 barrels.... I think that the ovals that I am running are just rite for my combo... Altogether, I got about $400 into purchasing them online and approx $800 into the machine work. I mean sure.....$1200 will get me into a set of Chinese aftermarket aluminum heads. But I had a real tuff time finding anything with less than 120cc chambers. Thus dropping my compression down dramatically. Probably causing much less power and throttle response... To get the compression back up I would have had to swap out my 10.5 cc domed pistons to something with much bigger domes on them....but I was on a budget and that wasn't feasible. I figure it cost me about 5 g's + or - to build my motor. And that was all I could afford....if I wanted to make more power, I would have had to spend about another $1000-1500, on a really good set of heads to get maybe 50-75 hp???... Nope...I am fine with what I got.. 91 octane gas and 34° total timing at 2800-ish....no audible detonation issues at 180 coolant temp.... Point being....on a working mechanic's salary, living in northern Cali, driving daily to work, on around 15-20$ in gas, I think the 880's are a good choice. Now on the other hand, $ no object, of course it's going to be the high buck aluminum ovals for the mild cam and bottom end I'm running....but can the truck 12 bolt and stock m21 take the extra 100+ hp and torque that goes with the superior head? I dunno, i think it's really hard to beat a good set of ovals on my little big block street motor....square port heads, stock or ported would probably ruin my otherwise great combo.....but with 500+ cubes and more R's, well, that might be a different story.....

Richard, u always have really....really great info that u are cool enuff to share with everybody.....I personally learned a LOT of stuff from u and that is what heavily influenced my build....thank u!!!! I sincerely appreciate the knowledge u bestow upon me!!

happy to help