Canfield 310's

[steelcomp]

I'm putting these on my 467 so I can get a boat back in the water this summer. I have a Lunati roller to go with them, so I'm thinking I'm going to add some decent power. Intakes are done, chambers are done except for a surface-to-size and then equalize. Started on ex today. These new "as cast ported" heads are great!! :D :coffeycup
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/504/1729can1.jpg
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/504/1729can2.jpg
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/504/1729can3.jpg
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/504/1729can4.jpg

[djunkie]

Just out of curiosity, how do these heads rate against the AFR's? Besides price difference is either one better than the other?

[steelcomp]

For the port size nothing touches their flow no's. I'm going to have these fowed after I'm done, so we'll see what they're really like.

[HP350SC]

Those look like decent heads. What is the cost of those bare? AFR's are around $2255 with 6 week lead time. It does appear the AFR's flow a bit more though. http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc.htm#BBChevy
By the way, can anybody tell me what GM heads are on A '97 HP500?

[HP350SC]

Looks like the Canfield's are about $1600, I may get those when I'm ready to change heads and cam, good bang for the buck!

[Sangster]

We ran 310 Canfield Heads on our 427ci BBC ... Now they are fully worked and on a 1/2' stroke, Blown 540 Alcohol motor.. :idea: ...I'll se if I can get the flow #'s......

[steelcomp]

These heads BARE were $1099 from Comp Products. HOWEVER!!!!...I had to replace all the guides. I had Alan Johnson do the chambers and I'm doing the ports and bowls. They'll go back for a clean up surface to get the chambers closer, then I'll equalize the chambers.
The AFR's do flow a little better, but IMO, not enough to be worth the extra $. These Canfields, at 310cc's outflow a lot of 340cc heads, and every 320cc head. They are VERY strong on the exhaust. I just bought a pair of BB2X's and at 340cc's they aren't much stronger on the intake than the 310's, and the Canfields smoke them on the ex.
Can 310's (as per Canfield)
Lift Int/ex (% ex to int)
.100 72/74 (102%)
.200 138/123 (89%)
.300 204/176 (86%)
.400 266/205 (77%)
.500 318/237 (74%)
.600 347/260 (75%)
.700 353/273 (77%)
.800 355/284 (80%)
average % ex to int=82%, average above .400"=76%
BB2X's (as per Brodix)
Int/ex
(no numbers for .100 lift)
.200 153/122 (79%)
.300 221/138 (62%)
.400 276/171 (61%)
.500 322/198 (61%)
.600 357/216 (60%)
.700 363/229 (63%)
(no numbers for .800 lift)
So you see that at .700, the Canfields only give up 3%, with a port that's almost 10% smaller on the intake, but look at the exhaust!
I'll be flowing my Canfields to get some real no's, but I'm very optomistic. :coffeycup

[steelcomp]

Got the exhaust almost done...
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1729canex1.jpg
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/520/1729canex2.jpg

[HP350SC]

I see what you mean, their E/I ratio is very good. Great for blown application :) What are some of your other motor specifics like exhaust manifold type, N/A or blown, fuel type, etc. What kind of boat?

[steelcomp]

I see what you mean, their E/I ratio is very good. Great for blown application :) What are some of your other motor specifics like exhaust manifold type, N/A or blown, fuel type, etc. What kind of boat?
BB Chev, +.060 (467") 4 bolt Mk IV with ARP studs
Early GM steel crank deburred, polished, nitridid, etc.
Eagle 6.135 rods
Cosworth pistons...12.4:1, so race gas.
Weiand TR, but looking for Dart
(2) 4780 Holleys (800 dp's)
was running iron GM 990's that I ported, added 2.25 int, Manley Pro Flows, Isky springs, Ti ret's, Crane Golds, Girdle, etc. and a flat tappet Racer Brown .610/ 264 @ .05 solid. Now I'll be bolting on the Canfields and I'm doing homework now on a custom roller. Headers are Rewarders that Jim bent up custom for me...kinda old school (80's) look. I'll be switching from the Comp roller timing set to a Rollmaster as well.
Old motor made somewhere in the neighborhood of 660-670 hp. I'm guessing I'll bolt on another 100 hp, or more. These Canfields can support 800 with no problem. The motor's going in my Bahner tunnel jet.
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/521/1729bah_eng.jpg

[steelcomp]

One thing to remember about the Canfirelds is that at low lift, with too agressive a ramp on your cam, you can suck the incoming intake charge right out the exhaust port. :notam:

[HP350SC]

Boat looks great man, keep us posted how motor performs!
BTW- how does the exhaust outflow the intake at .100 lift?

[steelcomp]

Boat looks great man, keep us posted how motor performs!
BTW- how does the exhaust outflow the intake at .100 lift?
Thank you for the compliment. Chamber shape and valve job. :D

[UBFJ #454]

Looking at the chamber photos I can't tell if your valve grind is a 3 or 5 angle grind.

[steelcomp]

Hey Jack...it's actually a four...I think the top is 28, then 45, then 60, and then just a bump on the bottom of the 60 with a 70. These really aren't killer heads, just decent. On a motor like yours, there is good power to be gained from such details. On this one, I'm just keepin it simple, and reliable. Notice the exhaust are just radiused with a 45, adn I think a 30 top. :coffeycup

[UBFJ #454]

Understood ... I was just curious. Everything looks good by the way ... Keep up the good work.

[helter skelter]

Canfield makes a good cylinder head... very nice right out of the box and very price friendly... even the larger head is a good deal. You spent your money well...imo.
Actually... I've been running them on my 489 for a few years and they work very well. The only thing I had a problem with was out of the 3 sets I bought at the time... all of them had seats with air pockets in them... and crack and fall they did in the first set... (bummer of a lake day) and changed out the seats in the other two sets before they made it out in the world. With anything new and performance... you don't want to be the first kid on the block with the new goodies because you get to find any problems that were not caught at the factory.

[cstraub]

Scott,
You need to rough that intake port up with some 40grit cartridges. Won't show anything on the bench, shows nice "things" on the dyno.
PM me on the chambers and I will tell you what to do there. It pays when you are friends with the guy that designed that head.

[steelcomp]

Scott,
You need to rough that intake port up with some 40grit cartridges. Won't show anything on the bench, shows nice "things" on the dyno.
PM me on the chambers and I will tell you what to do there. It pays when you are friends with the guy that designed that head.
Chris, the intakes don't show it, but they're done with a 40g. I'd be interested to hear what to do different with the chambers, though.
Thanks for the advice. You'll be hearin from me. :D

[steelcomp]

Here's the results from the flow bench. A little disappointing on the intake...they fell a little short of Canfield's claims of 355 at .800. The exhaust were real strong, responding very well to the work I did, out performing Canfields numbers considerably, (excepet their .100 number)although they were slightly turbulent in the middle. The valve job and chamber/bowl work here made most of the difference, since I didn't change the shape of the port at all. The one difference on the intake's big numbers may have come from cyl. size when testing. Mine were flowed on a 4.31 fixture (my bore size) and Canfield may have flowed theirs on a 4.500 bore, allowing for a little more unshrouding. The stronger low to mid-lift intake numbers I came up with are, again, from good valve job and the work in the bowls and chambers, although I expected to step up the big number a little, as well. Nothing I did to the intake should have hurt the big end flow, so there's a little discrepancy here. I didn't change the shape of the port at all, just a little blending and opening match. Not much discrepancy, though. Less than 3%.
These are Canfield's numbers.
VALVE LIFT .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800
Intake Port 72 138 204 266 318 347 353 355
Exhaust Port 74 123 176 205 237 260 273
Here's my flow sheet:
http://www2.***boat.com/image_center/data/504/1729scan.jpg
Here's a side by side comparison using my average left-right numbers.
lift Can# My#
.100 72 74
.200 138 166
.300 204 243
.400 266 289
.500 318 320
.600 347 335
.700 353 341
.800 355 343
ex
.100 72 66
.200 123 135
.300 176 179
.400 205 216
.500 237 251
.600 260 279
.700 273 298
.800 --- 312
Most advertised flow numbers reflect the average between the right and left hand ports on a BB Chev. All in all I'm not disappointed. For a 310cc port the numbers are plenty strong, and way good enough for a 467" motor turning 6500. There are also some power mods I was able to do that don't really reflect on the flow bench, but will show on the dyno. Remember, the flow bench is only a measureing device, and not the be-all and end-all of cyl head performance. Now I can get to the meat and potatoes of putting this motor back together.
Next...designing the cam.

[mrgoslow]

Can 310's (as per Canfield)
Lift Int/ex (% ex to int)
.100 72/74 (102%)
.200 138/123 (89%)
.300 204/176 (86%)
.400 266/205 (77%)
.500 318/237 (74%)
.600 347/260 (75%)
.700 353/273 (77%)
.800 355/284 (80%)
average % ex to int=82%, average above .400"=76%
were these #'s off your heads or an avg they use from their testing?

[INEEDAV]

These are Canfield's numbers.
VALVE LIFT .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800
Intake Port 72 138 204 266 318 347 353 355
Exhaust Port 74 123 176 205 237 260 273
Here's a side by side comparison using my average left-right numbers.
lift Can# My#
.100 72 74
.200 138 166
.300 204 243
.400 266 289
.500 318 320
.600 347 335
.700 353 341
.800 355 343
ex
.100 72 66
.200 123 135
.300 176 179
.400 205 216
.500 237 251
.600 260 279
.700 273 298
.800 --- 312
Next...designing the cam.
Is there much value to lifting this valves much more than .600? Seems like the heads are about done around there. A .600 lift seems like it would make valve springs live better than an .750 or so.

[Fiat48]

If the head doesn't flow....holding valves open is a waste of Hp. You make no power with a valve open.

[steelcomp]

Although the "numbers" don't show that there would be much advantage of opening the valve much further than .600, there's more to it than that. The cam that's been designed for my particular application, where I'm looking for max power in the 6500-6800 range, and will realistically run between 6200 and 6300 will have an intake lobe over .700, but an ex lobe of less than .700. Lift alone is of no use without considering duration as well, and duration will dictate the rpm range. The duration will be relatively short as compared to conventional tinking on this app, which might hurt power above 7000, but it will pick it up more down where I'm using it. If this was a v-drive, where I could gear it to what ever rpm I wanted, the cam would be completely different. That's one of the fun parts of building a good running jet...getting the power where you're limited to using it. I could cut the crap out of the impeller for more rpm, but then you begin losing impeller effeciency, trading pump performance for engine performance, At some point, you begin to have diminishing results.
I've been working with Chris Straub on designing this cam and I have to tell you, this guy's sharp! He's also about one of the nicest guys I've ever had the opportunity to work with. There's a lot of information that has gone into the profiles we (he) came up with and i'm looking forward to getting this thing on the dyno to see what we've got. He's had very good results so far, and I'm hoping this to be just another. I'll post the results as soon as I have them...probably toward the end of summer.

[steelcomp]

I might add this, although I'm not positive, but I think to keep the valve open for a measured duration, especially when the valve opens as late as possible (like with IR cams) and stays open for as long as it does, even thjough you don't "need" to open it that far, you have to continue opening the valve...you can't just reach max lift, then flatten the lobe, hold it there, and then start letting it down. You'd have "corners" on the lobe, and you'd throw the lifter. The lobe has to remain relatively consistant with a smooth radius, which might have to add lift, just to get through the cycle. Don't know if that makes any sense....

[steelcomp]

Can 310's (as per Canfield)
Lift Int/ex (% ex to int)
.100 72/74 (102%)
.200 138/123 (89%)
.300 204/176 (86%)
.400 266/205 (77%)
.500 318/237 (74%)
.600 347/260 (75%)
.700 353/273 (77%)
.800 355/284 (80%)
average % ex to int=82%, average above .400"=76%
were these #'s off your heads or an avg they use from their testing?
These are Canfield's numbers.

[Carnivalride]

Bump...any news to report? :cool:

[steelcomp]

Not yet...still waiting on cam, and a few other parts. Scored a very clean set of 1050's. (earlier 6464's) Will need to check v/p clearance with new cam, and probably have to fly cut pistons on the intake side. Still have lots of work to do. I'll keep updating as I go. :D

[Nordicflame]

You won't be disappointed.
I had a set of 310s worked over by Jim Valako. Mild port on intake and full port exhaust.
L/Int/Ext
.200/150/140
.300/230/181
.400/297/225
.500/342/258
.600/360/280
.650/---/290
Engine makes over 900hp in the boat with 7-8 lbs of boost :D :D
Have Fun!!!
Dave

[steelcomp]

Dave...that's pretty interesting. Thanks for that. I got about the same on the exhaust, but I'm wondering what he did on the intakes to get the numbers up above .300? What happened above .600? I studied these ports quite a bit and I didn't see much that could be done to pick up the top without making them considerably bigger. I was able to improve on Canfield's numbers up to .500, but my heads didn't even meet Can's advertized no's above .500. (I'm sure they flowed on a 4.500 bore, where as I flowed on a 4.31.) What's interesting is the exhaust...you say full port on the ex. yet our numbers are almost identical, and all I did was basically cartridge roll and blend the ex. I didn't change the port at all. (well, maybe a little :D)
Making the int. port bigger is no big deal for a blown app, but I wanted to keep it as small as I could for what I'm doing.
I always enjoy these comparisons. Thanks again!! :cool:

[steelcomp]

Update for anyone interested. Yesterday I got my cam (thanks CStraub), valve springs should be here tomorrow, (thanks Squeezing Spectra) ex. valves came today, waiting on parts for the Holley's (modifying for screw in air bleeds and soft progressive linkage), still need to mock-up motor and check vp clearances and cam install, and also check TR fit on heads, assemble carbs and linkage. Then final assy on everything, and hopefully have together for dyno test last week in Aug. Fresh stainless BC mpeller should be here Mon. or Tues. (Thanks MPD) and need to set clearances in pump, then can finish putting boat back together. Hoping to be at Ming in Sept. :coffeycup

[Squirtin Thunder]

I will be there Sept and Oct. :yuk:

[Jeanyus]

I'll be there too. Sounds like a Bahner tunnel jet reunion.
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/5859scottandbrant-thumb.jpg
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/585985bahner-thumb.jpg
Jim will you be racing your boat? I rented a motorhome, and need somone with a vehicle to launch my boat.

[Infomaniac]

Update for anyone interested. Yesterday I got my cam (thanks CStraub), valve springs should be here tomorrow, (thanks Squeezing Spectra) ex. valves came today, waiting on parts for the Holley's (modifying for screw in air bleeds and soft progressive linkage), still need to mock-up motor and check vp clearances and cam install, and also check TR fit on heads, assemble carbs and linkage. Then final assy on everything, and hopefully have together for dyno test last week in Aug. Fresh stainless BC mpeller should be here Mon. or Tues. (Thanks MPD) and need to set clearances in pump, then can finish putting boat back together. Hoping to be at Ming in Sept. :coffeycup
Dude last week in Aug is unacceptable. Get on the ball man. Were waiting. ;)

[steelcomp]

Dude last week in Aug is unacceptable. Get on the ball man. Were waiting. ;)
AAAAggghhhhh! Geeeeeezzz! OK, OK! :D :D

[Squirtin Thunder]

I'll be there too. Sounds like a Bahner tunnel jet reunion.
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/5859scottandbrant-thumb.jpg
http://www.hotboatpics.com/pics/data/500/585985bahner-thumb.jpg
Jim will you be racing your boat? I rented a motorhome, and need somone with a vehicle to launch my boat.
Yes I am setting up for the next Circle Race at Ming with SCSC !!!
See you in a few Hours !!!

[steelcomp]

Update. Checking cam events today, pushrod length, rocker geometry etc. Finally got the right valves, etc. Mocked up no. 1, installed new cam, and started checking. OK..cam card says lobe is .422 int, .390 ex. Check. Actual, .420/.389. Close enough. To check geometry, v/p clearance and p/r length, I always put a dial on the retainer and get actual valve lift. Card says GROSS lift, .717 in, .663 ex. Check. At actual gross, that's without lash, I get .736. Ex, .679. :confused:
Cam was made for 1.7 rockers. .422x 1.7= advertised gross of .720. Ex is .390x 1.7= .660 which is close enough to what the card says. (I don't know where the .003 delta comes from, but it dosen't matter)
So now I'm confused. Did they mean NET lift on the card? Subtract the suggested lash, and I'm right in there. But that dosen't matter anyway, becauase the lobe is correct, and the gross lift is what it is, at .736/ .679. measured. Several times. The only conclusion I come up with is that the Crane Gold rockers I have that are stamped 1.7 aren't. They're 1.75. :idea: So I get a free .020 lift. :hammer2: I haven't degreed yet, so it should be interesting to see what happens with the events.
More later.

[PC Rat]

Steel,
I ran into the exact same thing as you when I was building my 467.
Measured cam - right on.
Measured off retainer - didn't match card.
Did some math and came up with closer to 1.76 ratio rockers. They were also Crane Golds.
Brian