stupid question about valves - Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board
Hotrodders.com -- Hot Rod Forum



Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Unanswered Posts Auto Escrow Insurance Auto Loans
Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board > Tech Help> Engine
User Name
Password
lost password?   |   register now

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 11-30-2012, 10:26 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Merica
Posts: 89
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 13
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
stupid question about valves

Are chevy valves all that different from pontiac valves? I mean if some machine work were done to the seat, could chevy sbc valves be used in pontiac heads?

    Advertisement
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2012, 05:23 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,259
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 110 Times in 101 Posts
I used Ferrea 5000 Series SB Chevy SS valves in 1963 Pontiac 421 HO/1964 GTO heads. The 4.910" valve length, 11/32" valve stem diameter and valve material is the same.

My engine builder turned down the valve heads and back cuts to fit Pontiac seats. I turned down Chevy 1.940" intake valve seats .020" for 1.92" Pontiac Intake valves and turned Chevy 1.750" intake valve seats .090" for Pontiac 1.66" exhaust valves. That also required a 30 degree back angle to reduce valve head thickness behind the 30 degree intake and 45 degree exhaust face angles. It cost $6 per valve plus the cost of the valves. I had to do that because there are no "off the shelf" Pontiac SS valves that size.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2012, 08:29 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: TX
Posts: 1,259
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 110 Times in 101 Posts
SB Chevy valves will fit Pontiac heads except for the 1967-and later Pontiac large valve heads. The large valves used in Pontiac heads from 1967 - up, are 2.11" I and 1.77" E diameter and SB Chevy valves are too small. BB Chevy valves will not fit Pontiac heads in any way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2012, 01:57 PM
cobalt327's Avatar
WFO
 
Last wiki edit: Intake manifold
Last journal entry: 1980 Malibu Wagon
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta
Age: 60
Posts: 5,037
Wiki Edits: 1616

Thanks: 128
Thanked 598 Times in 547 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nuck Chorris View Post
Are chevy valves all that different from pontiac valves? I mean if some machine work were done to the seat, could chevy sbc valves be used in pontiac heads?
While many things are possible, the real question becomes is it practical, when there are Pontiac valves readily available.

What is it you are wanting to do? I hope it's not that you want to put 45 degree intake seats in a 30 degree Pontiac head...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2012, 08:00 PM
Registered User
 
Last photo:
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Merica
Posts: 89
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 13
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
I have a pontiac 350. I got some machined 1968 lemans heads, 18 I believe, for a good price. The intake valve size is 1.96. I was told by LATech that my valves are too small to hit 210 cfm. However I am pretty sure that 2.11/1.77 will be shrouded in the P350's bore. So I was thinking to myself, well what about some 2.02 chevy valves, would that bridge the gap? Would help me get to 210 cfm?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 12-01-2012, 08:33 PM
hcompton's Avatar
Old & Furious
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: MD
Age: 42
Posts: 1,074
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 6
Thanked 90 Times in 87 Posts
If you want 400 ft tq your going to need to think about a new engine.

Butler Performance - Pontiac Short Block Kits

This is olny a little more than the upgraded rotating assembly for your block and will produce a crap load more power than what you currently have. This gives you a short block w 461 cubes for under 4 grand. Grab some heads and good cam and your 400 ft mark is no issue.

With this you can run 211 valves and it will be fine.

Now with that kind of cash ypu can build a pretty bad *** small chevy motor that will make close to the same power. Either way you look at it you will have 5k in the motor before you hit that mark. Throw good money after bad into your current engine that will not do what you want it to do. You will have 7k spent before you get some real power to the ground.

Junk yard chevy motors are commonly built in the 2500 dollar range.

Hope this helps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2012, 07:27 AM
LATECH's Avatar
Hotrodders.com Moderator
 

Last journal entry: Motor - vator
Last photo:
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Northeast Pennsylvania
Posts: 5,438
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 230
Thanked 297 Times in 276 Posts
Valve shrouding is a problem in the 350. You will notice your block has a chamfer on the edge of the top of the cylinder to help unshroud the valves as the bore is smaller.
The guy in the video you posted ran the 092 heads from a 389/421, they have the 1.92/ 1.66 in/ex valves in them.
My thought is they are fine and bigger is not better when you want torque. I would bet he did some port work on the heads to make the runners more uniform in size, without enlarging them too far for CFM as that would cause a velocity drop and torque would suffer.
That being said, his cam choice and carb mods were probably accompanied by port work, done correctly, yielding his results.
He didnt need the larger valves.
Just my 2 c.
__________________
Fact is stranger than Fiction
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2012, 10:51 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Virginia
Posts: 705
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 0
Thanked 75 Times in 75 Posts
Agreed with Lynn. Large valves on a 350 are not the hot lick. And who said you "can't get" 210 because of a 1.92" valve should not be consulted again. That valve size will support well over 250 CFM if the ports are "right". It's possible to gain a BUNCH in the Pontiac intake runner with the proper approach, and it results in very little loss of low-end. Those 18s are decent heads for the 350. A good port job is called for, though.

Comparing '64-back heads to '67-newer is apples to donuts. '65 and '66 heads are okay, but NOTHING like the good ones later.

Agreed, "bang for the buck" is better with the larger cube Pontiacs. One said you can build a bad-*** small block for the money it takes to build a strong 461. True. However, that small block would be very "high strung", and no small block can approach the level of low-end power the big Pontiac makes. Drivability in a street car is second to none with the 461 done "right", and still making BIG power (not unusual to see a 3,600 lb. 2nd gen F-body running 10s on pump gas).

Butler Performance is one of the many Pontiac specialists "out there". They are the "premiere" shop, building moslty "high-end" engines. Good people, good stuff. David is "straight up". Butlers took the "big dog" spot from us in 2010 with their ProMod (6.26 @ 227). Nobody has approached that since. There are a couple "threats" that, once they get "sorted", should be solid 5 second cars, including one nitro funny.

Jim
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2012, 11:38 AM
hcompton's Avatar
Old & Furious
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: MD
Age: 42
Posts: 1,074
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 6
Thanked 90 Times in 87 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. P-Body View Post
Agreed with Lynn. Large valves on a 350 are not the hot lick. And who said you "can't get" 210 because of a 1.92" valve should not be consulted again. That valve size will support well over 250 CFM if the ports are "right". It's possible to gain a BUNCH in the Pontiac intake runner with the proper approach, and it results in very little loss of low-end. Those 18s are decent heads for the 350. A good port job is called for, though.

Comparing '64-back heads to '67-newer is apples to donuts. '65 and '66 heads are okay, but NOTHING like the good ones later.

Agreed, "bang for the buck" is better with the larger cube Pontiacs. One said you can build a bad-*** small block for the money it takes to build a strong 461. True. However, that small block would be very "high strung", and no small block can approach the level of low-end power the big Pontiac makes. Drivability in a street car is second to none with the 461 done "right", and still making BIG power (not unusual to see a 3,600 lb. 2nd gen F-body running 10s on pump gas).

Butler Performance is one of the many Pontiac specialists "out there". They are the "premiere" shop, building moslty "high-end" engines. Good people, good stuff. David is "straight up". Butlers took the "big dog" spot from us in 2010 with their ProMod (6.26 @ 227). Nobody has approached that since. There are a couple "threats" that, once they get "sorted", should be solid 5 second cars, including one nitro funny.

Jim
I mentioned the small chevy cause you can the numbers you are looking for with the least amount of cash. I posted the link for the 461 cause it was cheap and complete. also made 400 tq in almost stock form.

You will find several ppl on this site that have less than 3k in there chevy and make 400ft tq. They are not as high strung as you might think. 383's are very stable and cheap. If you can get 400 out of the 350 poncho its going to cost more than 3 grand and wont be reliable without replacing the rotating assembly.

Either way both are proven, dependable and easily done with Easy to find parts and labor. 350 poncho is proven not able to make the power you want without major investment of time/labor and parts.

I like the poncho motor but its not cheap.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2012, 12:58 PM
cobalt327's Avatar
WFO
 
Last wiki edit: Intake manifold
Last journal entry: 1980 Malibu Wagon
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta
Age: 60
Posts: 5,037
Wiki Edits: 1616

Thanks: 128
Thanked 598 Times in 547 Posts
The only thing iffy about the Pontiac bottom end is the rods. And the large journals on the big engines if they're going to rev. Cranks are stout as-is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:05 PM
hcompton's Avatar
Old & Furious
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: MD
Age: 42
Posts: 1,074
Wiki Edits: 0

Thanks: 6
Thanked 90 Times in 87 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobalt327 View Post
The only thing iffy about the Pontiac bottom end is the rods. And the large journals on the big engines if they're going to rev. Cranks are stout as-is.
Probably needs to be stroked to get 400tq right? So crank and pistons need to be replaced and now we need to replace the rods cause they are weak and bang new rotating assembly.

Even stock crank will need pistons to make some good compression and actually make that kind of power. Pistons and rods then some crank clean up works same price as rotating assembly right?

Just tyring the think sensible and stay as cheap as possible. If money is no object turbo efi will do the job nicely. Leave the stock crappy heads in place turbo will over come there bad design and push into the 400tq range.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 12-02-2012, 01:09 PM
cobalt327's Avatar
WFO
 
Last wiki edit: Intake manifold
Last journal entry: 1980 Malibu Wagon
Last photo:
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta
Age: 60
Posts: 5,037
Wiki Edits: 1616

Thanks: 128
Thanked 598 Times in 547 Posts
You said the bottom end wouldn't be reliable. I say the crank is fine. The 350 Pontiac is totally capable of 400 ft/lbs w/stock 3.75" stroke. If the pistons are worn and the block needs reboring, buy pistons- obviously. The heads he has are capable of enough CR as-is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Recent Engine posts with photos

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Hot Rod Forum : Hotrodders Bulletin Board forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name (usually not your first and last name), your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
REALLY stupid question.. wayneair Engine 3 12-12-2005 02:40 PM
Stupid Question Pitbullsandmustangs Introduce Yourself 2 10-12-2005 08:04 PM
stupid question kylejohn Engine 7 03-07-2005 11:15 AM
very stupid question ? pjsplayhouse Body - Exterior 3 11-09-2003 04:21 PM
Stupid Question!!! !!! !!! Selwyn3III Engine 6 10-28-2003 05:43 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Copyright Hotrodders.com 1999 - 2012. All Rights Reserved.