oh my
GOD.
1.) so the protrusion IS a hindrance on flow then.... good to know. realistically would a 00-02 head (that does not have the protrusion) be cheaper to do because its less work?
2.) the other side of the chamber (opposite to the protrusion) looks just like the way an 086's does...
3.) prolly the absolute largest i have ever seen on the port work, holy hell that is large. i cant wait to see the LD9 head haters start weeping when this thing out-flows an 086.
ammfab, unbelievable.
Underdog Racing
Looks great Mike. I told you those valve guides stuck in the runners way to far
.
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
z yaaaa wrote:oh my GOD.
1.) so the protrusion IS a hindrance on flow then.... good to know. realistically would a 00-02 head (that does not have the protrusion) be cheaper to do because its less work?
2.) the other side of the chamber (opposite to the protrusion) looks just like the way an 086's does...
3.) prolly the absolute largest i have ever seen on the port work, holy hell that is large. i cant wait to see the LD9 head haters start weeping when this thing out-flows an 086.
ammfab, unbelievable.
ok talking another language hear, whats an 086 head? i take it the guys with these heads think they are superior to the ld9 heads? also what was the year span that the ld9's were in production and what head or engine replaced them? lmk or puts some pics up would ya.
and gary, they really didnt stick up as far as i had imagined them to. at most i may have removed 1/"4-5/16" from the outward side while not even hitting the inward side all the way and the exhaust as u can see i may have trimmed down an 1/8" on the outward side. im not worried one bit about any accelerated wear or valve wobble as there is plenty of guide left in the head to hold those valves still.
mike
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 20, 2010 5:31 AM
i make neons go fast
ok few things....
is it better to take out the guide to make it flush? would it be best to send the head to you with or without the guides?
how much lower do you think the compression will be with the material removed from the chamber?
did you compare the wall thicknesses etc on the other head you were being sent yet?
-edit- there are two year spans, 96-98 (which you have) and 99-02, which is quite a bit different in terms of the combustion chamber. same shape etc but it doesnt have that protrusion.
the 086 is the big daddy 2.3 quad 4 head, it has been rumored that absolutely no amount of port work on any LD9 head can out-flow one stock (i call BS).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 20, 2010 5:40 AM
Underdog Racing
Well damn, If I ever do another head, I know where im going.
Btw, 086 head is a Quad 2.3 head. One of the better flowing heads stock for stock.
LD9 production heads were 96-99 and and are different from the second half of 99 to 2002. I think different as far the water jackets *i think*
~2014 New Z under the knife, same heart different body~
______________________
WHITECAVY no more
2012 numbers - 4SPD AUTOMATIC!!
328 HP
306 TQ
z yaaaa wrote:ok few things....
is it better to take out the guide to make it flush? would it be best to send the head to you with or without the guides?
how much lower do you think the compression will be with the material removed from the chamber?
did you compare the wall thicknesses etc on the other head you were being sent yet?
1. what do u mean is better to take out the guides to make it flush? is it better to make them flush??? removing the guide allows for more cfm if thats what ur asking.
2. i can figure that out by CC'ing the chamber as long as i can get some other measurements from some of u guys. (stock dish or dome height of the piston, head gasket thickness when compressed, bore and stroke, and piston deck at TDC height compared to block) this head would work tits on a boost engine but with a little bump in compression with higher dome slugs it will also work well in an NA application.
3. no comparing as i dont have a junk head to hack up yet. i looked pretty carefully though through the mounting side of the head before porting and i dont think there are going to be any issues at all with water jackets.
mike
i make neons go fast
right on sir, lets see some pics of these 2.3 heads, what year were they in production? are they used alot or are they interchangeable with the ld9's (this ish is confusing)
mike
i make neons go fast
WHITECAVY wrote:Well damn, If I ever do another head, I know where im going.
Btw, 086 head is a Quad 2.3 head. One of the better flowing heads stock for stock.
LD9 production heads were 96-99 and and are different from the second half of 99 to 2002. I think different as far the water jackets *i think*
96-98 then 99-02. All 99 heads are like 00-02s.
Doug Anderson...era 1998ish wrote:
HEADS
There have been DOHC heads used on the Quad 4 with several variations of each due to changes in valves, ports and structural design.
1987-89 VIN D The 87 Quad 4 came with a 16-valve aluminum head that was a 22530955 casting. It had a "modified pent roof" design and siamesed ports for each chamber. The intake valves were 35.5mm and the exhaust valves were 30.0mm.
1989-92 VIN A (H.O.) and 1990-92 VIN D When the H.O. motor was introduced in late 89, it had a new head with bigger valves, along with subtle revisions to the chamber and ports to "reduce restriction and improve flow.". The intake valves were increased from 35.5mm to 36.5mm and the exhausts went from 30.0mm to 31.5mm. This head, c/n 25539086, was also used on the VIN D engines from 90 through 92.
1993 VIN A (H.O.) and 1993 VIN D The 93 DOHC engines came with a new head that had smaller exhaust ports and two larger 10.0mm studs for the exhaust manifold. This revised head, c/n 24570753, was used on both the VIN A and VIN D applications in 93. The service replacement is a 24573303 casting.
1994-95 VIN D The head for the 94 DOHC engine had the smaller exhaust ports and the modified hole for the water outlet, just like the one on the 94 SOHC head. Its a 24575456 casting, and it was used in 95, too.
1996-98 VIN T The new 2.4L engine came with a different head that had several changes. The chamber was shaped more like an oval with straight sides, both the intake and exhaust valves were smaller, both the intake and exhaust ports were different, and there was an EGR crossover passage cast into the head just below the water outlet. Its a 24574683-18 casting.
1999-'02 VIN T - Head casting number is 779....no EGR.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 20, 2010 7:23 AM
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
^^^Good call Mike
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 20, 2010 7:23 AM
~2014 New Z under the knife, same heart different body~
______________________
WHITECAVY no more
2012 numbers - 4SPD AUTOMATIC!!
328 HP
306 TQ
WOW....I could put my fist inside those Intake ports!
You opened those up a lot! I would love to see flow numbers on this, I would be interested in seeing how this compares to the Eco head you did. By the looks of it this would flow a hell of a lot more.
Great work man! ALMOST makes me wish I had a 2.4...lol
Hmmm,wonder if you could take out the LD9's exhaust valve seats,remachine,replace with the 086 valve seats and pickup some more flow...
Quote:
The intake valves were increased from 35.5mm to 36.5mm and the exhausts went from 30.0mm to 31.5mm.
LD9 = Intake diameter 35.5mm (1.3987 in.) Exhaust = 28.87mm (1.1366 in.)
Stem dia. Intake = 5.921-5.941 Exhaust = 5.908-5.928
Even the '87-'89 vin D valves would pickup flow.
(If you can get them in stainless/inconel for a forced induction motor)
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 20, 2010 8:04 AM
"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
for now im going to have a valve job done on the ported hole and then send it to the flow bench to do the before and after flowing.
mike
i make neons go fast
Looks awesome!!!! Watching for flow numbers!!!
FU Tuning
This is very impressive work. I would definitely cc the chambers, because it'll be helpful to those choosing pistons for their particular build.
z yaaaa wrote:ok few things....
is it better to take out the guide to make it flush? would it be best to send the head to you with or without the guides?
how much lower do you think the compression will be with the material removed from the chamber?
did you compare the wall thicknesses etc on the other head you were being sent yet?
-edit- there are two year spans, 96-98 (which you have) and 99-02, which is quite a bit different in terms of the combustion chamber. same shape etc but it doesnt have that protrusion.
the 086 is the big daddy 2.3 quad 4 head, it has been rumored that absolutely no amount of port work on any LD9 head can out-flow one stock (i call BS).
Professional CNC port and chamber PnP is completely different than Joe Shmoe with his dremel. I have no doubt this will flow far better than the 086.
I have no signiture
ammfab wrote:z yaaaa wrote:ok few things....
is it better to take out the guide to make it flush? would it be best to send the head to you with or without the guides?
how much lower do you think the compression will be with the material removed from the chamber?
did you compare the wall thicknesses etc on the other head you were being sent yet?
1. what do u mean is better to take out the guides to make it flush? is it better to make them flush??? removing the guide allows for more cfm if thats what ur asking.
2. i can figure that out by CC'ing the chamber as long as i can get some other measurements from some of u guys. (stock dish or dome height of the piston, head gasket thickness when compressed, bore and stroke, and piston deck at TDC height compared to block) this head would work tits on a boost engine but with a little bump in compression with higher dome slugs it will also work well in an NA application.
3. no comparing as i dont have a junk head to hack up yet. i looked pretty carefully though through the mounting side of the head before porting and i dont think there are going to be any issues at all with water jackets.
mike
yes, ive heard both... that its better to leave the guides alone and its best to remove them (the part that protrudes into the ports).
also... ive heard that knife edging the intake side isnt the best for flow... care to comment?
Underdog Racing
^^^ Knife edging IS better for flow, Brad. It's just poor for atomization of the fuel due to the reduction of turbulence. It's really a catch 22.
I have no signiture
ammfab wrote:right on sir, lets see some pics of these 2.3 heads, what year were they in production? are they used alot or are they interchangeable with the ld9's (this ish is confusing)
mike
As said above they have bigger ports and valves in stock form. The chambers are smaller and raise the compression considerably. These can be run on the LD9 with a few oil and water passages modified. I have done this before.
I found some pics on the web so here you go
- Attachments
- 086 chamber.jpg (91k)
086 exhaust ports.jpg (120k)
086 intake ports.jpg (112k)
Whalesac wrote:
Professional CNC port and chamber PnP is completely different than Joe Shmoe with his dremel. I have no doubt this will flow far better than the 086.
i do all my porting by hand sir.
ive never tested a blunt divider vs a knifed divider so i dont know if there are any benefits over one or the other but i do know with the knifed dividers i do its still seems to make for good flow.
thanks for putting those pics up of the 086 head guys, i gotta be honest i think theres a little more potential there then in the ld9 heads. im wondering if i should try one of those next.............. anybody =).
mike
i make neons go fast
If I had the cash I would send you mine to do. Its been PnP some but not nearly to your standards. plus its a recast so the exhaust needs lots more work to even be the size in the pics above.
I can try and find a junk head to send you though.
Also about the dividers, I dont pretend to be an expert as I have no actual knowledge, but my local machinist claims the blunt edge is better because the air wraps around it like an airplane wing and a sharp divider will deflect the air and cause turbulence. I have also heard from another local machinist that the sharp edge is better because it cuts the air and the blunt divider causes deflection and turbulence. Im not sure who to believe. It would be neat to see a flow bench comparison.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edited Monday, September 20, 2010 9:09 PM
ive heard the same thing u have sir and what im doing works so thats what i stick with. its just like when people argue to make the ports super smooth or not, again my rough finish works so why even easte the time to try and get a mirror smooth finish (im of the opinion that this will not help flow at all though so def. a waste of time IMO)
mike
i make neons go fast
ammfab wrote:heres the intake and exhaust port pics. again great time doing the exhaust ports on this head but intake ports with injectors integrated into them just are not so fun to work on. also i realized after i had done the porting that i went a bit to high on the injector arch ill have to back that down a bit on the "production" race ported heads. the exhaust ports are quite a bit bigger and ready to flow as u can see (which will def need a cutsom gasket or high temp silicone). hopefully ill get exhaust flow numbers around 80% of the intake on this head unlike the ~74% i got with the eco head. anyways heres the pics.................
what do u guys think???
mike
Wouldn't exhaust ports that large on an NA engine hurt performance??? A large port would slow down exhaust flow.
I am might be jumping the gun a little since the head has not been flow benched yet.
Jason
99 Z24
LG0/LD9 for Life
10 Year Bash Veteren
