WHICH FACTORY BBC HEAD MAKES THE MOST POWER? PEANUT PORT vs PORTED 049 OVAL vs REC PORT vs AFR 265!

[@eddieburgett9678]

Glad I found your video because when I built my bb Chevy I could only afford a set of 402 truck heads and I always wondered

[@1967davethewave]

Back in '95 I had a '70 Corvette with a 454 LS6 straight out of a '70 Chevelle. I had read an article by John Lingefelter in Hot Rod where he tested the oval port vs the factory rec port heads. His oval port heads were #049s with 2.19/1.88 valves and some bowl work mainly around the short side radius. He found no where below about 750hp where the oval port wasn't superior. And I mean by a large margin (30-50hp). With the cost of rec ports always being very expensive and at that time you could find 049's for a couple hundred bucks they made a lot of sense. It took about $600 to put the bigger valves in, get the heads all cleaned up and properly machined, but I built a set and put them on the Vette. I sold the rec ports to finance the build. It went from a mid 13 in the quarter mile to a high 12 but I was having fuel starvation problems. I'm not surprised that an out of the box set of aftermarket heads are far superior to everything. Technology marches on thanks to guys like Richard who test everything. Those things I knew for sure 30 years ago have been totally debunked in many cases and I'm fine with that. I just want the facts.

[@scottm7341]

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.

[@corvettejohn4507]

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.

[@1967davethewave]

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

[@1967davethewave]

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

[@MrScottt28]

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

[@scottm7341]

The gen 6 96-99 7.4/454 have good large oval port heads (not peanut ports). But they have big 'lumps' in the intake runners by the valve guides, supposedly to enhance swirl. I spent probably 40 hours grinding on a pair of 1999 heads. I took out the lumps so the intake runners now look like all other normal intakes, and per David Vizard, worked the runners to redirect flow away from the cylinder wall on the 'bad' ports. On a SF600 flow bench, intake flow went from 245 cfm stock to 295 cfm at .600 lift with the stock 2.06 intake valves. That much flow should support roughly 600 hp. I also uniformed intake runner volume and chamber cc's, plus flat milled .020 to make 102 cc chambers. Can I send em to you for testing?

[@pico67ss]

Great head for a 396

[@Harrybowles1969]

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

[@MrScottt28]

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

[@Harrybowles1969]

@@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 KZbin too

[@shitbox82]

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…

[@kpadalldotablet1009]

I had a 396 in a 1969 SS Chevelle back in 1980 that we ported oval ports to rectangular ports in order to match a Corvette tripower we used on it. This was a 396 w/o any stroking or boring, or anything else. We use chromoly main bolts. The cam was huge and intake was 326 duration and 550 lift on a non roller cam. Compression was 11.75. 550+ at rear wheels on dyno and would turn 7300RPMs. It was just a cheap build meant to go as fast as we could in high school, and get it it did!

[@rotaxtwin]

I was impressed with the peanut port performance. Just goes to show what a pig dog camshaft most 454 trucks got saddled with, along with 7.8:1 compression - thru most of the 70s & 80s.

[@vincentknight5358]

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.

[@trxtech3010]

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.

[@jbaker8871]

@@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

[@trxtech3010]

@@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.

[@tomtee4442]

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.

[@Charlie_Prinz]

The gains from modern Aluminum heads is amazing. Very Impressive.

[@brettschacher8644]

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

[@ronaldlewis2041]

Thanks for sharing I had a set of 088 fully ported with 230 intake valves,I do have AFR 325 on my 496 drag car but I got to try the 088 on my 468 ,10.5 bbc with a 660 hydraulic roller in my 69 chevelle project to see how it will run,I can always port and build ,I have 2 sets of 781 heads in the shop,Thanks again for all the knowledge you provide!!

[@DevastationMtrsports]

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

[@ronaldlewis2041]

@@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 😀

[@DevastationMtrsports]

@@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

[@1957mrmark]

Back in the 90's I replaced the 088 square port heads on my 8.75 compression 454 marine engine with a pair of ported 781 heads, 2.19/1.88 valves from Lingenfelter. The dyno showed 30 more horsepower and the boat picked up 3 to 4 mph. Same 750 Holley, mild 224/232 cam and Dart single plane intake.

[@Rickgrott100]

I port heads for a living not much BBC iron stuff anymore.. The ported rec port would not help much In this combination do to this small cid LOL and low rpms "just my opinion" Great test it falls in line with what i have seen throughout the years

[@w41duvernay]

Got website for business?

[@msh6865]

For the street...always choose ported large oval's or an aftermarket aluminum head like the AFR's shown here. The name of the game on the street, especially with a heavy, stick car is velocity. Remember, your big block is essentially a huge air pump. Keep port velocity up with moderate volume on the street. For the track or all out racing applications, ported rectangular ports or even better, aluminum aftermarket heads with the ability to move lots of air at higher velocity above 6500-7000 rpm. Gotta love big blocks!

[@benhoke6330]

I'd like to see the stock peanut ports with the 2.19 intake valve and mild port work on the bowls and throat.i think that would be a great 454 head to 6000 rpm? Thanks for the testing Richard!

[@exploranator]

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.

[@noahdunaway]

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.

[@scottsigmon926]

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.

[@noahdunaway]

@@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.

[@shitbox82]

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

[@erenzoscroggins8056]

049s would whoop those iron rec ports at the track anyday ported or not👀👀👀

[@sstevocamaro]

Wow!! The tiny AFR’s made almost 100hp more than the peanut ports! Amazing!

[@taylorsrus9543]

@port nut Or any stock head

[@madmod]

@port nut Money

[@stevedawe3840]

I personally would like to see how much power/torque a set of vortec heads are worth compared to this test, but even more I would like to see how much power a set of ported vortec heads are!! I have a couple of gen 6 heads around and would like to know they would compare ported vs an aftermarket set.

[@ctg288]

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

[@shadvan9494]

@@ctg288 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.

[@Val_Killmore]

We need a ported peanut port test already!

[@operatingengineer]

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

[@bigdaddy9864]

I have a set of 1971. 292 ls5 heads open chamber 105cc they make 500hp on my 427 .I think is a great street /strip head .

[@operatingengineer]

I wish the peanut port heads were the ones that were ported so we could see how they would do against a set stock 781 or 049s

[@gordocarbo]

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.

[@operatingengineer]

@@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?

[@operatingengineer]

@@gordocarbo kzbin.info/www/bejne/goXImXmAic-Hn6csi=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!

[@thereluctantgearhead4544]

​@@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.

[@operatingengineer]

@@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 kzbin.info/www/bejne/goXImXmAic-Hn6csi=Z0JL9GRd46srLXTb

[@tomtee4442]

On my 572 street and strip engine. I wanted a little more oil pressure at idle when warmed up. I lowered my oil level by one quart and installed a Summit Racing low oil pressure cut off saftey switch. Wired saftey switches through the ignition it also makes more power. The more the oil level to wrap oil around the crank on the technical side. But I lowered oil level to raise oil pressure a lil more at idle it worked. I also installed a high temperature saftey cut off switch which saved my engine once. No one can stay glued with eyes on gauges non stop. I like things to last a long time!

[@LeftForDeadGarage]

Wow those AFR’s for the win. Hp Tq weight and cooling.

[@firebirdjone]

To answer your last question in a more apples to apples way, I know the AFR 305 square ports are very close in power to the newer AFR oval 265's you tested here because I run a nearly identical combo on the street with a similar camshaft using a set of the AFR 305 square ports and it makes very similar numbers to your test engine here. I've run ported OEM oval ports before but never ported OEM square ports. After all the money I spent back then with ported OEM heads, 25 years ago I just decided to jump into a set of AFR 305's (oval port AFR's weren't around yet) and I've never regretted that decision. Still run that same combo today.

[@ok_boomer4709]

Use the right intake (REC PORT) on the stocker rec port heads and amp the cam up to 600+ lift and see what you get. I will say a set of 049 heads with 2.19/188 valves and a little porting will probably be the best budget/hp build and make more torque down low.

[@roykrossin8343]

Thankyou !! So tired of this debate and here’s the facts Jack !!

[@tptrsn]

Big block content is interesting stuff Richard!

[@markestes5948]

All my life I have heard how great the rec port heads are. I have always ran stock 049's on the 402 and 454's in my Chevelle. I built my present 468 with flat tops, a 232/239 duration 549/558 lift cam, 840 heads and factory intake with an 850 Demon. The engine runs great, pulls hard and is very dependable. I have ran a best of 7.95 in 1/8th with 4:10 gears and an automatic. I have come to believe that with this combo I would be just as well off with 049's. Better yet a set of these AFR's. But the engine runs so good I don't want to mess with it! Thanks Richard for educating all of us!

[@rotaxtwin]

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

[@theupscriber65]

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

[@markestes5948]

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.

[@trailerparkcryptoking5213]

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.

[@markestes5948]

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.

[@davidresar8256]

We need a BIG BANG BIG BLOCK!

[@chrissmith7669]

For registration and insurance as „historically significant „ by the German TÜV I looking for the best factory heads. If it didn’t come factory installed or wasn’t in the GM replacement parts catalog I can’t use them. Good information on the flow

[@dustanlochner3013]

Id like to see you do a test on intakes on BB ford heads. how much difference does it make if the intake ports match. no after market intakes match the small port efi heads. with efi motors being so cheap id like to keep my hualer with the same heads but have a modern efi set up and intake. id be great to see real data to make a good decion.

[@ianriordan6382]

Having built a few BBCs here in Australia, for V-drive boats, cars and trucks, I tend to focus on torque. I wouldn't run stock rectangle ports with less than 260@050 intake and plenty more on exhaust. I did a 454 in a 73 LWB C10 tow rig years ago and used a set of oval ports off a 360HP 396 (can't remember the casting number), but with a mild hydraulic flat tappet, a c 427 intake, stock convertor and 3;07 gear it ran 13.9 and would pull down a house. I now own a 1988 K3500 TBI 454 single cab and it happily pulls 3 tons of redgum firewood in a trailer with another 2.5 tons in the tub. I'm thinking of either TFS or AFR heads around 280/290 cc intake with a hyd roller in the 215/225 - 225/240@050 range. It is a hunting and firewood rig. I live in rural north east Victoria Australia, so it will be used in hill country and freeways. No city driving. Any thoughts?

[@tomtee4442]

Most after market heads iron and aluminum have rolled valve angles for better breathing. Bigger valves, 3+ angle valve job, better flow and design even with as cast heads. And all out full port and polish heads. Thicker better castings especially in SBC's which need it. Late model SBC stock thin casting heads which are known to crack when to hot.

[@bdugle1]

Too big ports, such as ported rec port BBC heads, would likely kill torque. I think you already found the ultimate heads for a 468 for the street! Thanks Richard!

[@infamousnova]

Man Bryce did some awesome work, I wish I never sold my sportsman II and Hurricane intake 😔

[@rtb4008]

Got a 635hp 680ft 496 with ported 990 heads, 9.6:1 , RPM air gap , 234 240 .620 cam

[@richardholdener1727]

did you mean 580 lb-ft?

[@rtb4008]

@@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!

[@TheFRiNgEguitars]

Intake port match for the AFR head would improve flow volume and velocity, and throttle response on the street! The results are amazing considering the intake mismatch.

[@wallywire]

Hi Richard, I have a pair of 990 cast heads with over size valves 2.3 1.88 no other work. I let you use them to test, for flow numbers up to .800 lift.

[@richardholdener1727]

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

[@unclesquirrel6951]

Personally I blame squirrels

[@t.s.racing]

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

[@unclesquirrel6951]

@@t.s.racing 😃👉🏻 🥜 👉🏻🐿✅😂

[@JMAGG]

I've been having an issue sealing my intake manifold to my big block. Can you maybe make a video on an installation? I've tried so many different ways and watched many different videos on KZbin and after about a month of use there's a leak. I'm able to seal the china walls fine and don't blow that out, it's the runners and water jackets. First the runners were sucking in oil, I think I fixed that. Now the water jackets are leaking. I put a thin layer of optimum grey around the water jackets but now they're leaking. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank you!!

[@r.d.riddle2068]

In the early 70's I had a friend that built a 427 with a wrecking yard as a source for hard parts. We ended up with oval port heads and an aluminum dual plane rectangle port intake manifold. The engine ran surprisingly well in Denver. Never had a vacuum leak, stump-pulling torque, and the engine lasted for many, many years.

[@michaelangelo8001]

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

[@rexwarren7847]

Great stuff rich

[@joshuashuck3994]

Hoping this was the day I finally got a back to back to back between factory PPs, lrg oval and rectangle. Some day Richard, some day

[@richardholdener1727]

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

[@pmd7771969]

We reverse the 396 and 402 bbc to 9500 rpm on rec factory heads. But we didn't keep it there long. Roller parts help too. Bv

[@darrinstone49]

Im guessing the stock oval ported heads retained the stock valve sizes? I like the aftermarket heads but its way cheaper to build a set of stock oval port heads with larger valves, 3 angle valve seats & 2 angle valves does do well at low to mid range lift where a normal street engine spends most of its time. Cruse speed with OD transmissions was where the peanut ports shined. For my towing use I run Turbo Diesel for better mileage & power.. for an big offroad truck a built bbc is sweet, for mud, sand & snow an LS works well or built gen 1 383 or 406. Any cam shoot outs for LS1 5.3L for trucks & other offroad builds?

[@MrScottt28]

Ultimately, I ran a set of World Products 269cc oval port heads with a 288R cam in the 433. I ported the heads and equalized the chambers. It had the Dart intake and a 750 Holley.

[@DadsDriveway]

Ported Rec port heads on a solid roller 468 did over 600 HP before the fogger

[@3800TURBO]

Would have been interesting to try ported rec port with slippers on the floors which a lot of people do.

[@corvettejohn4507]

Richard, did you run the oval port intake on the rectangle port heads? If so, you may have handicapped the rectangle port heads some. As far as what a set of ported rectangle port factory heads would do, just look at a NASCAR 427 Chevy engine from 1972 that Junior Johnson put together for Bobby Allison's Monte Carlo. Typical power output of the NASCAR 427 Chevy's of the early 1970's was around 625hp. Also, look at the McLaren Chevy Can Am big blocks of the late 60's with ported rectangle heads. They put out 650-700hp with fuel injection.

[@richardholdener1727]

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

[@corvettejohn4507]

@@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.

[@corvettejohn4507]

​@@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.

[@timothymcdaniel6121]

What u think the edelbrock 454-O head would do? I got a set on a 496 with one step lower cam than that one.

[@DevastationMtrsports]

The square Port heads are better suited to higher compression and the RPM combo with a looser converter but they work real good that way. The ovals especially like the old 49 781 head they'll work real good with compression or kind of without it even like around 10:00 or 9 and a half to one if you can't it right you have to cam it for what they want to run out the back and it won't run like a rectangle head so you can't put a like a lot of duration in it because you'll kill the torque on it.. so with the oval you can you can keep it pretty good and it'll still keep torquing it and it'll run upstairs quite a bit better but you still have to watch the velocity and stuff in your port cuz there's not enough to feed it over a level like a rectangle at 300 plus CC

[@richardholdener1727]

compression helps and combination

[@DevastationMtrsports]

@@richardholdener1727 Sure but factory square ports are big on smaller ci engines and without some compression, lift and rpm they are not optimal vs the 049/781 head.

[@DevastationMtrsports]

@@richardholdener1727 I'm real curious how you might cam my 468 and if you would change the intake or not..??

[@shadvan9494]

this was a cool test. 1. 049 is a great head, but not the best factory big oval. the best factory big oval is the 820. the open chamber unshrouds the valves and it flows better. the only real mod you need to do is add bigger valves. the factory valves were 2.06/1.72 by just upgrading to 2.19/1.88 valves they will out flow a factory rec port head. and make more power down load too boot. I am thinking that the peanut port head might work good on a 396 with a small cam like a XE276HR.

[@chrishensley6745]

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.

[@tomtee4442]

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

[@SealofPerfection]

This is interesting, but I think the thing to be aware of is, the short block never changed. Bolting on a better set of heads means you can also get a more aggressive cam to take advantage of them. So while that cam you had was probably pretty big for the peanut ports, the rectangle ports needed a bigger cam to get the numbers. I would also say that 30hp is a pretty decent gain when no other changes were made.

[@roberttrevino4184]

You should try a set of 3993820 heads 400-402 113cc chamber I changed valves to 2.19 and 188 great heads nobody ever looks at them

[@joejonaslover68]

id like to see what a fully ported peanut head would look like. it would probably be a super great street head

[@jnljnl8485]

I think a peanut port head will gain quite a bit on the 049 with similar bowl work and valve size up to 6500 on a 454 size engine. It would be interesting to test the Edelbrock 2.0 peanut port intake against the large oval Edelbrock on a large oval head to see just how much the smaller runner dia kills power

[@GIGABACHI]

. . . 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 ! ☹🤦‍♂👎

[@jnljnl8485]

@@GIGABACHI not a head just an intake.

[@GIGABACHI]

@@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.

[@jeffoglesby1327]

@@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.

[@michaeldelaney7271]

Just curious, what heads were used on the "Reynolds Rat" engines in the CanAm series? Keep putting out your videos, they really are fun and informative. Thanks.

[@corvettejohn4507]

Ported Factory Aluminum Rectangle Port ZL-1 heads.

[@michaeldelaney7271]

@@corvettejohn4507 Thanks.

[@pmd7771969]

Rectangle port heads work great with forced induction engines. If you don't want to run an engine that way you need to use the heads in the upper rpm band and higher numeric gears in the axle. So in other words 3200 to 8500 rpm with 4.56 to 5.12 gears was alot of fun to haul ass in. Some guys tried rectangle port heads on engines that had too low of a power band to get enough air moving to feed the port. Oval ports ported are great, if they are the newer aftermarket stuff. Back in the 80s if you didn't run rectangle port heads on a bbc. Like a 427 you were considered a non serious street , strip guy. Now everything changed when force induction motors came on seen. They helped all head type of engines make crazy power. But the aftermarket rectangle port heads were awesome once force induction was put through those heads. A supercharger kept us out of having to spool up a turbo. And low speed to medium power was improved on rec port heads. We used factory heads back then. Peanut port heads were never considered. We hated them and still do. No one sells performance Peanut port heads. Porting them is a waste of time since the oval ported heads outflow them by a lot. Especially with cnc porting on much improved aftermarket oval port or rectangle port heads. No one redesigns Peanut port ,ports. Cont Bloodviking

[@mikeing3924]

Could you do a video on a 454 stock rod length vs the 6.385 rod and appropriate piston? How different they rev and any power benefits.

[@richardholdener1727]

how different they rev?

[@mikeing3924]

@@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!

[@No1414body]

Hmm I would like to see the difference using a performer rpm airgap, I believe you would have a better package with the ovals, the torque peak would be lower but higher

[@richardholdener1727]

less power with all of them

[@tomtee4442]

One guy I know runs a 454 cid peanut heads, small hydraulic cam, pump gas, 3,000 stall, 4.11 gears, 73 Nova 1/8 mile his best 7.75 ET works good.

[@chrishensley6745]

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

[@antilaw9911]

Need to do a video of a typical stock 454. Swap cams. Start with 268. Then progress to larger. So many videos and nobody still cant get it right. The 454 motor home video, they put the top end kit on but should have shown just what cam swaps will do on the dyno. And matching springs.

[@gordocarbo]

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

[@karlloper7217]

How much power did the R port intake on the Peanut head kill? Weiand makes a Peanut head dual plane that may have produced gooder numbers for that Peanut head.

[@chandlerlofton6536]

When selecting a street head, you want the smallest runners for the desired cfm right? I always heard that this gives better throttle response and low end torque. I’ve always used AFR heads because they make a really efficient head. I have tiny 205cc AFR heads on my LS 408, but they flow over 300 cfm. Was this a good move for a street motor vs just slapping some rec port ls3 heads on it with about the same cfm?

[@richardholdener1727]

I THINK SMALLER WITH THE SAME FLOW IS BETTER

[@vinknepprath4404]

How about a stock peanut port ,mildly ported peanut ports, wildly ported and valve job comparison?

[@christopherc3017]

Stock 454 in my single cab dually. Mark IV edition. So peanuts for sure. Now with the info I would be interested in a high torque style build with them. I have the manual trans and the 4.56 gear set. I like the pulling power.

[@natec4359]

I just finished building up my 94 crew cab dually. Factory bottom end with a Speedmaster top end kit. 2.25/1.88 valves .485 lift cam Holley Sniper with Hyperspark It's quite the machine now

[@christopherc3017]

@@natec4359 I appreciate that. I have been looking at those cylinder heads for a while.

[@natec4359]

@@christopherc3017 Yeah, it could have alot more power quite easily but keeping the torque in the low rpms was most important for what I'm using the truck for.

[@christopherc3017]

@@natec4359 that’s what I’m looking for. Plus if someone ask to race. I can break out tow strap and say let’s hook them to frames and see how pulls who? Mines a 78 c30.

[@xmo552]

@@natec4359 Is the Speedmaster kit peanut, oval, or rect? On a long cruise what kind of MPG are you seeing? I have a srw 1 ton '81 with a 350/400/4.56:1 She's fast loaded or not. Empty or loaded I get 8-11 MPG. She weighs 7400 with the gear on it daily. I have some huge grades I have to tow up near me. I'm considering boosting my 350 since she runs gooooooood or BBC. I have a fresh 454 block. I'm not interested in LS. Cummins 5.9 in the future possibly. If I could get torque AND mpg I'd like to keep it all Chevy and carb'd.

[@smilsmff]

I would say see what the NHRA Stock class cars are using and if one makes better power and Super Stock for best power. That Camshafts are unique for both. there was Very excellent build up story about 650 horsepower big chevy with steel heads

[@jasonschagt640]

Yes ported REC port heads will make more power, only down fall with factory heads is the big heavy 3/8 stem valves. Ported quit a few rec port heads for circle track, drag and pick pullers

[@chickenray182]

I think I could live with the peanut port heads if they came in aluminum. Not a lot of RPM but the weight savings would make it a nice street choice.

[@ryangulley2051]

I have several bbcs. Only stock heads I have 990 sq port heavily ported 2.30 valves..I have canfields,brodix rr flowing 380s and afr 357 mags flowing 425 cfms

[@wara4632]

Thanks for the 454 builds I wonder if you can make a big oval head support power to 7200 rpm. Yea I know why make spin that high an make it hard on the valve train an it makes good tourqe but I just like the sound of a high rpm big block chevy which I'm building now for a manual 70's camaro.

[@richardholdener1727]

lots of oval ports will make power at 7200

[@regsmith7604]

I’ll take the AFR’s

[@ldnwholesale8552]

By the time you find some decent heads, pay to port them the alloy heads will be a far better deal. And a LOT lighter as well

[@tomthomas9910]

Awesome video as always knowledge is power" real world results no snake oil" b.s from the manufacturer": i had 904 rec ports on a 383 , with a notched dual plane but longer runner single pulled thru mid & top impressive you can get over a hundred hp with just heads" thinking 75 hp max on street/mild strip car

[@tomthomas9910]

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

[@abrahamvenegas2422]

Is it possible to use an Edelbrock oval port intake on peanut port heads? What would the would there be any performance difference? Thanks.

[@ericbeauchain9836]

I have a .030 over 454 4 bolt block with a .010, .010 forged factory ls6 crankshaft, a set of 5140 forged I beam rods connected to 10.5 cc domed hyperuetectic pistons and a Howard's cam kit with matching springs,retainers,chain,etc...cam specs are (I think) .224/.235 dur, .535,.545 lift with 1.8 rollers, and 110 lsa. I degreed the cam in at 4° advance. The heads are a set of 880's that have 2.19,1.88 stainless swirl polished valves in them...the heads were ported mildly and the bowls blended in to the valve sizes. The combustion chamber is around 100 cc's giving me approximately 10.1:1 comp ratio. I got a Chinese Air gap dual plane intake, a holley 750 vac secondary, that I cut the choke horn off and blended the ventures into the secondary side. Then I drilled the secondary accelerator pump passageway open and tapped the threads in the body for the second pump shooter nozzle. And a 650 double pumper throttle plate....the combo with a Muncie m21and 3.08 posi rear gears makes all kinds of power and torque!!!! Plenty enuff to push my 4200 lb '74 c10 stepside down the road in a real hurry!!! I figure I'm probably putting about 460, 475 hp to the ground... The truck has awesome throttle response on the primary side

[@ericbeauchain9836]

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.....

[@ericbeauchain9836]

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!!

[@richardholdener1727]

happy to help

[@keefespencer1173]

You should check out @Eric Weingartener and his channel he mainly compares different heads on his two flow benches and he runs his own business where he ports and polishes heads and intakes for a living and he mainly compares LS,SBC, and BBC heads and intakes every once in a while he'll compare Ford heads and intakes and like I said he has two flow benches and if he flows one head on one flow bench then he'll flow the other head on the same flow bench to keep the comparison fair and Apples to Apples and Oranges to Oranges and he also has two drag car's of his own one with a small tire SBC and the other one big tire with a BBC and I hope to see you two do a collaboration video one day soon

[@richardholdener1727]

I've spoken to Eric-he does good stuff

[@gaj9080]

Richard, Could you please use different colors for your graphs? It would make it easier to see what your talking about.

[@richardholdener1727]

my software does not allow that

[@EL-FUKKO]

From personal experience factory Rec port heads ( ported or unported ) are definitely better suited for race applications, While well set up oval port heads work well for street duties. Although each to their own as every driver expectation and car gearbox and diff combination is different

[@chrishensley6745]

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!

[@kennethcohagen3539]

I’m interested to see how these heads do. I used factory oval heads on a .30 396, (the same thing as a 402), with RV cam, dual plane, headers and tuned it all to tow my Boss’s truck which he used to tow his fifth wheel. He had his choice of any engine he wanted, and we built this on for him. It originally ran a 350 with TH 350. We started with a trans swap, going to a TH400 as there weren’t any overdrives available at the time and picked up a couple miles per gallon. From 8 mpg towing to 10 mpg. After the engine was installed it fell short of our goal to double his mileage, but he was running large Truck tires in the rear with a One Ton Axle in place of the 3/4 ton axle. I think he was getting 12 Mpg at the time, but when he finally swapped in a set of low gears the Combe gave him 16 mpg, the same as when it ran the 350, towing nothing and an empty bed. I really loved that motor as it was the one that proved I knew what I was doing. One thing the Richard might or might not address here is the unequal runner length of the intake ports. That made the build above a bit more difficult.

[@richardholdener1727]

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

[@kennethcohagen3539]

@@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!

[@MultiHotrod74]

I currently have a set of 990 rec port heads on my .060 over 427, making 439. I have a set of either 049 or 781 heads in my shed I was going to build for it, the 990's are too big. I was considering a set of AFR 265's, this video confirmed it. By the time i have my oval ports worked over, I'm into it as much as a set of AFR's for the same money

[@jeffstewart7976]

Square ports want more rpm. 049 .781 oval ports make really good lower and mid range

[@georgeperillo6421]

Depends on who's doing the porting? CNC or manual?

[@BrandonLyons1]

Did you use the same intake manifold for all these dino test?

[@gordocarbo]

Love to see an L78 or L89 with afr 265s. THat will wake it up big time! Unless you are a pro and forced to use iron it isnt worth spending to put bigger valves and all the extra work anymore.

[@russelljackson7034]

Right on

[@sc358.]

I'd guess a large rectangular port head. Raised runner as much as possible, port turned ovate, filled with epoxy to correct size/shape. Welded/reshaped chamber, large valve and angle milled. Lotta work, probably 50+hrs. Would only make sense if running it fit within a particular rules class. But it would probably beat many standard valve angle aftermarket heads on smaller cube BBCs.

[@madmod]

You ever do any testing on the 413 Wedge?

[@richardholdener1727]

I have not

[@richardschmidt95]

Schmidt 0 seconds ago I doubt any of the factory heads no matter how ported will match any AFR head. The trick with the AFR heads seems to me to be that they raise the roof above the short turn. This gives more cross section in that are without having to lower the floor. All you can do with the stock heads is open the corners of the short turn and remove a little metal around the guide boss. . Porting that area of the stock heads vastly improves the flow of stock heads but if you go too far you hit water. The AFR heads get better tumble which is what the "bad ports" on a BBC head need because swirl on those ports just pushes the air toward the already restricting cylinder wall. That's just my opinion.

[@drdanimalsize]

I saw that they were Pistons a mild dome but I didn't catch the static compression ratio

[@richardholdener1727]

10

[@pmd7771969]

We had to gear the car accordingly to what head we ram. The rec port heads work at higher rpms then the ovals or p port heads.

[@pmd7771969]

The cast iron heads did strengthen the engine block considerably compared to aluminum. Bv

[@davidphillips3953]

I never could figure out why when they went to the peanut port why they moved the port to the bottom of the rectangle port opening... seems they could have shrunk the ports for low RPM power just by filling the floor but they basically filled in the roof and lost some of the higher RPM potential by having a less straighter shot at the back of the valve... filling the roof helped tq and cost HP, filling the floor would have helped TQ the same way but with less effect on the high RPM HP.

[@richardholdener1727]

be cool to test that

[@richardgutteridge2127]

You can't compare the rectangular port head with oval ports and use the the same cam as it needs a different lobe separation angle, e.g 108 or less and advance the cam timming to get the bigger port to work as well as more compression.

[@richardholdener1727]

no it doesn't

[@chrishensley6745]

@@richardholdener1727 like you said earlier in video!

[@hollowell427]

Wow, the sbc in my 74 C10 has got to go. Was gonna do a 383 sbc but now i want a 496. Big block stroker. Think ill run me a set of 396 valve covers on it after i build it and install it. lol

[@ctg288]

I'd like to see this test on 91 or 93 with high IAT's to simulate street driving. I'm curious as to how drastically better the aluminum head tolerates pump gas in that scenario. EDIT: I just did the math, and that engine should be around 9.3:1 with the 049 heads and just over 10.2:1 with the AFR's, which both hypothetically should run just fine on 93.

[@EricFixalot]

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

[@ctg288]

@@EricFixalot Exactly my point.

[@billpeet5556]

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

[@bktk8]

Id like to see what minimum cam could be used to produce 500hp using the 265 heads on a 454.

[@crawford323]

What miracles could be had on my '73 Corvette Big Block auto, if the numbers correct head and manifold would likely be retained but with the addition of headers, cam and replacement carburetor? She is choking at 275 hp. Would it be possible to increase the horsepower by 50 to 100 by headers and carburetor alone?

[@richardholdener1727]

where was the 275 hp measured?

[@crawford323]

@@richardholdener1727 I have not a clue. What I was led believe is the manner in which the HP was measured is not the same as today. Now, I doubt it was at the rear tires. I could only wish this.

[@crawford323]

@@richardholdener1727 This is spec HP and I have seen it reported both as 270 and 275 HP. I don't know.

[@blueyhis.zarsoff1147]

Like to see BSFC with those torque numbers

[@exploranator]

REMEMBER, FELLAS, HE DID NOT CAREFULLY OPTIMIZE ALL PARTS OF THE SYSTEM FOR EACH PARTICULAR HEAD. Lots of power and torque may still lurk in spending lots of time in camshaft, header, intake, etc. choice.

[@richardholdener1727]

no

[@reloadingfun]

Isn't this the same test you did for motor magazine a back in 2012? If it is, you have said in the past that the peanut port heads in this test had bigger valves also. The Peanut ports I had flow tested, flowed 226 cfm at 500 and gain anymore than that to .600 lift. Is it common to get more than 2HP per CFM?

[@richardholdener1727]

that number is not uncommon for a restrictive head on a good motor

[@reloadingfun]

@@richardholdener1727 so, did those peanut ports have larger valves like your motortrend article said they did?

[@robertwest3093]

AFR has proven time and time again that they know how to improve ANY cylinder head!

[@klausvonschmit4722]

With all things being equally besides one set of cylinder heads being those ported oval 049 would be to test a pair of equally ported open chamber and then, a pair of equally ported closed chamber rectangle cylinder heads versus a pair of ported worlds 345 versus a pair of baddest set of CNC ported cylinder heads ever manufacturer the AFR’s 357!! Although, I would suspect that 468 compression ratio and camshaft may not be the best foundation that would allow the AFR 357 cylinder heads shine! However, throw a PSI, or a Helix 14-71, or a centrifugal supercharger on that 468 with that little camshaft versus a manlier camshaft be prepare to be in ah with the results.. As usual Richard, great content! Klaus

[@richardholdener1727]

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

[@taylorsrus9543]

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.

[@coonbuddy8142]

Wouldn't that ledge be a big disadvantage for the peanut ports with the larger oval port manifold? Or am I misunderstanding?

[@richardholdener1727]

it still works