What do you think of my Lloyd Elliot heads?

Just got them today. They have 2.0/1.57 REV valves, porting and multi-angle valvejob and have been port matched to the intake. The intake was bored for my 58mm throttlebody and some mild porting was also done on the intake (other than matching). The runners are 185cc. The heads were designed for a low boost setup (5 - 9 PSI) and will have a custom matched cam. Anyway, here are the numbers .....are these pretty good?

Lift Intake Exh
.05 35.8 26.7
.10 65.7 52.2
.15 102.1 77.2
.20 137.8 102.6
.25 163.2 117.7
.30 191.6 136.3
.35 220.1 152.8
.40 239.7 163.1
.45 254.4 173.5
.50 261.5 181.7
.55 265.5 187.9
.60 266.1 192.0
.65 265.7 194.3
.70 265.2 195.6

Not bad, not bad at all. A local place is getting just over 270 out of them, thats not much differance.

Looks good.

looks alright - what cam are you going to put in?

Originally posted by BPS
looks alright - what cam are you going to put in?

A very knowledgeable member is helping me with that. He is very bright and designs the cam around everything else to come up with the desired effective compression ratio for the boost range I will be using. Now that he has the flow #'s he'll come up with something soon. I want good torque and driveability but stil want a nice sounding idle. So it will likely be on a 112 or 113 LSA for the nice idle sound and have somewhat mild duration ...something like 215 - 220 on the intake and 223- 230 on the exhaust. Contrary to popular belief ....the common 114 and 115 "blower LSA" and 12 degree exhaust bias doesn't usually make as much power as a setup with a little more overlap and less bias.....provided, you are not making tons of boost and using heads that flow a lot like stock. Stock heads need the extra exhaust duration more than a good ported or aftermarket set. Anyway, you may as well say it will probably come out to something similar to the cc 218-230-114 but probably on a 112 with less exhaust bias .....just an educated guess, I really have to wait and see what he comes up with.

Originally posted by carnutz
Not bad, not bad at all. A local place is getting just over 270 out of them.
Remember, the guy stated the runners are 185cc.

Originally posted by arnie
Remember, the guy stated the runners are 185cc.

Doh ....lol. I'm always tired when I'm posting. PORTS ...not runners ...lol.

Originally posted by canbaufo
PORTS ...not runners ...lol.

Why not runners, and what's so funny about it that you put an 'lol' in at the end? He used the term correctly... saying 'intake runner' is just as common and accepted as saying 'intake port', as far as I know ... even have a Dart cylinder head brochure in front of me that uses 'runner' instead of 'port'. Please explain your problem with 'runners' :confused:

Originally posted by EddieP
Why not runners, and what's so funny about it that you put an 'lol' in at the end?

Actually, I merely repeated the term the guy from WV used. Like you, I didn't see any problem, or for that matter, the need to change to the more common port term, as he corrected himself with. Maybe you missed the wording in his first post? :) So, basically, you're agreeing with both of us, but maybe, didn't realize it. :D ......Anyway, for a 185 cc port, er, runner, that is very respectable. Alot of 270+ flow #s, end up being on an appr. 200cc port.

Boy we're full of misunderstood info here ....lol. I thought Arnie was making fun of me for using the term "runners". I thought he was right since the term "runner" is usually reserved for the intake, not the heads....so I corrected myself. Then EddieP thought I was making fun of Arnie for saying "runners" even though I was under the impression that I was "laughing with" Arnie at myself but in fact I was the only one laughing at me.

If Arnie had just said, "those are impressive numbers for 185cc runners" ....none of it would have transpired. LOL.

Now for the really messed up part. I just found out from Lloyd that the ports/runners actually turned out to be 188cc's ....he was just shooting for 185 as I asked. I guess Arnie's point still holds up since that's not much difference. Good point, now that we're all on the same page ...lol.

BTW, Lloyd's a great guy to do business with :cool:

I was just looking at those flow numbers. They are good, but like most LT1 heads quite weak on the exhaust side for a boosted motor. I think that in this case you will need a lot more duration on the exhaust side, as is often seen in LT1 blower cams. As far as LSA goes, you are right. "Optimum" LSA for peak power is typically ~4 degrees less than usually used on LT1 cams. But a narrow LSA has some significant disadvantages for a street car in terms of narrow power band, idle quality, etc. In some cases (especially with an automatic) the narrower power band may mean that in spite of the higher peak numbers the car doesn't run as fast. I see the wider LSA cams as being more street friendly.

Rich Krause

Originally posted by rskrause
I was just looking at those flow numbers. They are good, but like most LT1 heads quite weak on the exhaust side for a boosted motor. I think that in this case you will need a lot more duration on the exhaust side, as is often seen in LT1 blower cams. As far as LSA goes, you are right. "Optimum" LSA for peak power is typically ~4 degrees less than usually used on LT1 cams. But a narrow LSA has some significant disadvantages for a street car in terms of narrow power band, idle quality, etc. In some cases (especially with an automatic) the narrower power band may mean that in spite of the higher peak numbers the car doesn't run as fast. I see the wider LSA cams as being more street friendly.

Rich Krause

Well, part of my reasoning is I just love a tough sounding idle. I once read a magazine article on cam tech and learned that the best way to roughen up an idle and get peak midrange and topend numbers without sacrificing much bottom end is to tighten the LSA a bit (as opposed to longer duration). You say my heads are weak on the exhaust compared to intake, the ratio is about 73% or so averaged out ...true, this is nearly as weak a ratio as stock but I forgot to mention I have Hooker LT's and mufflex with Borla/E-valve. Keep in mind I am not going to be using a lot of boost, so my cam sort of needs to be designed like an N/A cam since a low boost blower is sort of like glorified cold air induction to the engine. Also, since I'm sticking with a 112 lsa the exhaust valve will be opening later than it would with a wider lsa ....so I don't need to hold it open so long like I would if it were starting to open sooner. The low boost level also dictates less need for for exhaust bias than a higher boost setup would. I'll also be using a little more advance than typical off the shelf grinds. This is a totally custom deal, the guy working it up for me is brilliant and has been doing this for years ....he wishes to remain anonymous for these discussions.