LS/V-T

I will be need my b series head ported in the near future.. Who should I trust to have do the work?

What kind of pricing should I expect?

Any other info or links of head and port work?

00Red_SiR

beyond any doubt, Steve at CCCylinderheads. Check out his site and drop him an email with any questions. www.cccylinderheads.com it's best viewed using Mozilla Firefox browser.

Red_Army

that 2500 dollar package is pretty sick.

UncleD

iTrader: (2)

RLZ is another one, give "NAH2B" a pm and he'll respond quickly

Mr. EG

or here http://portflow.com/product.htm

cibao2ner

there a thread already....RLZengineeringcom, ENDYN(theoldone.com) 4piston(team4piston.com)CC (cccylinderheads.com) portflow.com ....theres more but those seem to be the most active in honda tech...there also headgames,jimstewartrace engines,alaniz,TBmotorworks(fastest NA bseries right now)...

they all have different prices..but NAH2b has some nice prices for RLZ work if you go tru him..

unusual71

you get what you pay for. Headwork will range from 500-2500$ generally.
Consider lead time also, which unfortunately i can't comment on, but have heard stories on here of people shipping off heads and waiting months for their return.

as mentioned, there are a lot of threads on head work floating around but its a very large topic and there is a ton of conflicting information out there.

onefstek

Keep in mid to get what you need. You don't want to get a head that flows more than what you need.

Port for what your cams will support. So if your cams will only lift .450" then your peek cfm should be between .450"-.500" lift. No need for a head to flow good at .550" lift since your never going to use that range.

Stefan

eksessiv

Find a machine shop, do it locally. If you can get good work done close to home, always better. When stuff gets away from you, then it is harder to control situations.

Combustion Contraption

I posted about this in the other thread that you posted this information in, & I'd like to present it here, to present my side of the argument. This is not meant as a personal attack, there are actually several head porters who maintain your position, I would just like to express mine.

Standard flowbenches operate between 10 & 28" of h2o, with 28" generally being the industry standard. Why this is the industry standard harkens back to Smokey Yunik. Anyway, in a running engine, the port "see's" a depression of much more than 28" and some NASCAR/F1/upper tier shops are equipped to flow heads at 60" and above, which enables them to see trends that flowing at 28" does not. Does this make flowing a head at 28" worthless? Absolutely not. To get to the point, because the port see's more than 28" of depression while the engine is running, testing at lifts above what the port will actually see can be beneficial, because it can give you an indication of if the head is 'backing up' at high lifts, and that's never a good thing. While I dont always provide the info on the flowsheet for my customers, I routinely flow heads that have camshafts in the .500" area up to .750" because I want to see how the port/valve job combo reacts at those lifts, which are closer to actual conditions in a running engine.

Another good point in the same thread I referenced earlier was made by a member who pointed out that you should want to maximize airflow at the peak of valve lift because the valve spends so little time there. This might seem counter-intuitive, ie, since it only spends a fraction of a millisecond there, its not as important as low-mid lift. I think of it completely the opposite. Because it only spends a fraction of a millisecond there, you want to promote as much flow through the hole as you can, in that split millisecond where the valve is as open as it gets, because that's the biggest window you're going to have.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, some would argue this calls for making the ports as big as you can possibly make them, even if the engine never see's the high side of 6k RPM and has a .375" lift cam, but theres more to my above theory than that, and I cant afford to write it all out on a post. The gist of it is, there are several ways to increase top end flow without huge ports, and all the stuff has to work in harmony. Chamber shape, throat size, valve lift, port shape, valve seat angles, port entry angle, etc. etc. There is no one size fits all port, and one size fits all theory, which is why I dis-agree with the statement that there is no use in having a head that flows like gang-busters at .550 if you're valve only see's .450".

My .02.