+1mm oversized valves any good?
Jan 6, 2010, 05:49 PM
#1
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1mm oversized valves any good?
could someone tell me if there is an actual big gain from getting the head done and putting +1mm valves in it? how exactly does this give u a gain and what kind of gain is it? is it a faster turbo spool up or what? 
Jan 6, 2010, 05:59 PM
#4
Newbie
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on the port sizes, choke area, and valve area, my porting friend says stay w/the stock size valves. IIRC the #'s show the stock sizes good for 8200 rpm on a 2.0 and 7800 on a 2.3???? Only need larger if you are turning big RPM. More of a sales gimmick IMHO.
Paul
Paul
Jan 6, 2010, 06:47 PM
#5
A ported head that is demonstrated with a flowbench to benefit from oversized valve is a different situation.
Jan 6, 2010, 08:16 PM
#6
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm going with an 850r setup already have everything for it. I'm just geting the head done very soon and am going to be putting down about 700awhp at iveys. So with that kind of power wat do u think about the +1mm valves??
Trending Topics
Jan 6, 2010, 09:50 PM
#9
It's actually a good question.
Yes, in some applications where more airflow is required than the stock valve size (and ports) can provide, larger valves are necessary. This is only after the ports have been developed to their potential, then a larger valve is the next step towards more flow.
Velocity is another important part of cylinder head performance that can often be sacrificed by unnecessarily large ports or valves.
Check out the issue of Import Tuner hitting the stands any day now. It has part 2 of my 4G64 MIVEC build and details the cylinder head. I explain why the stock valves were retained on my 2.4L 4G64. The current issue has the shortblock build.
Yes, in some applications where more airflow is required than the stock valve size (and ports) can provide, larger valves are necessary. This is only after the ports have been developed to their potential, then a larger valve is the next step towards more flow.
Velocity is another important part of cylinder head performance that can often be sacrificed by unnecessarily large ports or valves.
Check out the issue of Import Tuner hitting the stands any day now. It has part 2 of my 4G64 MIVEC build and details the cylinder head. I explain why the stock valves were retained on my 2.4L 4G64. The current issue has the shortblock build.
Jan 6, 2010, 10:44 PM
#10
It's actually a good question.
Yes, in some applications where more airflow is required than the stock valve size (and ports) can provide, larger valves are necessary. This is only after the ports have been developed to their potential, then a larger valve is the next step towards more flow.
Velocity is another important part of cylinder head performance that can often be sacrificed by unnecessarily large ports or valves.
Check out the issue of Import Tuner hitting the stands any day now. It has part 2 of my 4G64 MIVEC build and details the cylinder head. I explain why the stock valves were retained on my 2.4L 4G64. The current issue has the shortblock build.
Yes, in some applications where more airflow is required than the stock valve size (and ports) can provide, larger valves are necessary. This is only after the ports have been developed to their potential, then a larger valve is the next step towards more flow.
Velocity is another important part of cylinder head performance that can often be sacrificed by unnecessarily large ports or valves.
Check out the issue of Import Tuner hitting the stands any day now. It has part 2 of my 4G64 MIVEC build and details the cylinder head. I explain why the stock valves were retained on my 2.4L 4G64. The current issue has the shortblock build.
could you please let me know what you're explanation is?
i'm going 2.3 with some head porting and i'm wanting to know if i should go +1mm oversize too.
Cheers, Mike
Jan 6, 2010, 11:37 PM
#11
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 722
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well the reason I'm asking this is because I see all these big name brand heads coming with +1mm valves. I wana get the head ported regardless. I was just wondering why there all going +1mm on there heads instead of just porting the stock size??
Jan 7, 2010, 03:47 AM
#12
I run stock size valves in my ported head for my 4G64.... my tuner in England doesn't think oversize valves make sense under 700 hp, so I went with that. Been running it for 3 years now. I have no idea whether bigger valves would have made the motor better. Doubt it.
There has not been a conclusive test done so it's all guess work.
There has not been a conclusive test done so it's all guess work.
Jan 7, 2010, 07:19 AM
#13
stock 4g63 sixe is 34mm/30.5mm
I believe evo X is 35mm/29mm
Jan 7, 2010, 08:13 AM
#14
On a set up like your i would suggest a 1mm larger intake valve and either a stock or +.5mm exhaust valve. After some testing on our CNC head it was determined the 1mm oversized exhaust valve was a little on the large side and really did not help out flow much on the exhaust side.
Jan 25, 2010, 12:36 PM
#15
Great info! 2.0 here with 640whp but I want to get the head ported and enlarge the valves. Looks like I'll just do the intake side unless someone here has proven data to stick with stock size. I'd like to see 750 at the wheels with an HTA3586 turbo.
