Four boost port BB head review LONG

Well i had a member on here port up a brand new BB head for me (Sam Yousif AKA boosted306). I did this for one reason and one reason only. Sam was SUPER kool. I had previously had a fout port ZH1 head done up by another board member that cost me $85 and after putting that on i lost 1000 RPM no matter what kind of tuning i did. That guy didn't wanna help me with my situation at ALL. So i was SOL.
Well i was looking for someone else to port a head for me but was weary after being burned once before. then i met Sam on here and i told him what happened so he offered to port my BB head and send it back so i could try it out BEFORE i payed him. Talk about someone who belives in his product. Well i got my head back and it was great. i have been really busy and hadn't had alot of time to mess with my bike lately. put the head on about a week and a half ago, rode it for a few minutes then my pipe cracked. so i snuck it into work and TIG welded this time (instead of MIG at my house) And also welded in some reinforcements so it wouldn't break anymore.
WELL, yesterday we had about 10 - 12 friends meet up yesterday at a local high school and that was the TRUE testing day for the head. I had to gear my bike down to 6/74 just too keep up off the line with everybody. I weigh 226 lbs and everyone else was 80 - 150 lbs. well i did more than keep up i blew every body's fairings off right from the word GO. everyone rode my bike and came back scared saying how much power it had. I am VERY pleased with my head. the only time i got beat was on the top end when i let two of my friends borrow my 7 and 8 tooth clutch housings. My 120 lb friend had the 8 tooth and after a while would creep up to me and slowly walk away from me and my 140 lb friend pretty much was even with me all the way with the 7 tooth.
Now for the numbers.
Before i had IP2 pipe, FCSC, stock squiggly line head, CF reed, stock carb bored to 16 mm and was turning 10,750 unloaded and 10,250 loaded. (i was doing 11,000 loaded before w/ a squiggly line head w/ ported exhaust but i ruined that head).
Then i got Sam's head and he said it would do better with out the FCSC so i just got another motor out of one of my DEMO BB bikes and put on Sam's four boost port BB head, FC reed, stock carb bored to 16 mm, and my IP2 pipe. I had misplaced my jet pack so all i have right now is the stock 68 jet. I have not tried anyother jet so far.and it was turning 10,850 loaded and about 11,200 unloaded all day yeaterday. It's reving about the same as my first set up (FCSC, p[orted exhaust head) BUT this set up has like double the low end because of the BB head. And my 220 lb self needs all the low end i can get.
i still have a lightened fly wheel and a four pteal reed i need to put on and see what happens. But this is A BADD A$$ head worth every penny. Oh and it was cheaper than the first ported head i bought too.

i would like to see some pics of the port work ! so it has 4 boost ports? i know sam does some of the best port work out there and is a great guy!

check out my gallery, i have a 5 port bbk done by sam.

Yes but he is saying he has 4 boost ports, not 3. I am curious to see this too!

Here are pics of the the head that is in this post....
I would like to thank all you guys for the great words about the heads!!!

get-r-done a.k.a. hackmunch, This work was shown before in a thread that proabably got deleted. Notice the non symetrical porting and the weak points in the piston window. In my opinion there is too much material removed from the side of the cylinder, this face is a piston thrust face and excess piston and ring were will happen. The piston window width has left very little supporting the thrust face of the skirt and it will eventually give up and crack in that spot. Non sumetrical transfer and boost ports create turbulence holes, these basicly reduce the ports ability to fill the cylinder. Don't take my word for it though, read "the book" that i talk about often, they go to great lengths to get the transfer ports exactly the same heght ~0.1mm of each other to get the flows hitting the centre of the cylinder at the same time. In this case adding the extra boost port has done nothing but disturb the transfer flow.

By the way, in our engines @ 12,000rpm a piston weighing 44g will exert a force over 0.5lbs 400 times per second on this thrust face, doesn't not sound like much. But when you consider the area it is rubbing on, it does not sound very stable at all. When you exert a force over an area, then half that area the contact pressure doubles, these slots have reduce the contact area maybe 10fold? meaning the likelyhood of premature engine wear will be increased with this design.

In my opinion, 1 big boost port works very well, 2 boost ports is great, 3 boost ports is probably too many and 4 is just silly.

ps. Dallas L7, for someone that's only been here 10 days, you know all the lingo? hmm?

p.s. if you don't like my oppinion, how i talk, my book recomendations or anything about me then please use the ignore function, i do.

edit: boosted306, i see you took my advice about the piston, glad to see i have been helpfull to you.

Good to see you back Sam.

I'm pretty sure Dallas-L7 is Sux2BU. Funny how some of the members on this website try to get around the ban by just signing up with a new s/n. Guess you guys realize how much you like this website and how helpful it is. Now maybe you guys can follow the rules a little better.

Thank gawd you confirmed it, i was sure i was getting paranoid. hey, SNG could you dump the pic on Macdizzy and see what the experts say? that would end a few arguments before they start. Please.

my name was bigwrench1979 on the old forum (pre hacker crap). Some people don't get it....
As for the porting. If you port a big two stroke (250) you only use 2 boost ports. Why would need more than that (which is silly, as blah so eloquently put it) on a motor more than 5 times smaller...? I'm sure it performs, it just doesnt seem healthy to the top end. And another poin,. the more you lighten the piston the less rotating mass. Reducing mass redcues torque and hence less off the line and more top end. I'm 175lbs and I'd prefer not to lose anymore bottom end for sacrifice of marginal top end. Thats what pipes and efficient porting are for. The stock 44mm piston seems pretty nice as is. Wet sand the top from 300-800 or 1000 to polish the top of it increasing flow across the surface. Also encourages better combustion.

I'll have to do that and see what they say. I haven't been on macdizzy for at least 2 weeks now. Its great seeing the old posts by IP2. Good tech stuff.

there's few ip2 threads lurking around the old tech post on Dean and gangs NZ site. good stuff indeed. the true sensei of the daytona. long live the king.

I did some serious work on this subject, looking at the mass of reciprocating parts, ie gudgeon, circlip, piston, rings, topend bearing and top off conrod. I also looked at the acceleration of these parts at different revs and different crank angles. I concluded that the nett effects of removing reciprocating weight would give a slight hp advantage at high rpm, the loss of any impulse or rotating mass was insignificant as far as reducing torque goes.
I found a reduction of 5g weight from reciprocating parts in our cag motors was worth 0.18hp at 12,000rpm. The removal of 5g weight from a flywheel however would be unnoticable, Don't get reciprocating parts and rotating parts mixed up.

Not much either way makes sense on such a tiny scale. my bad on mixing em up, cood call on the flywheel. It's tiny too. Have you done any research on ip2's heat-shield. 10 dollars for 15 degree lower head temp is fair to me. Plus I spend so much time working on my old elsinore 250 that I just wanna ride my daytona.
My philosophy on tuning is
1.)wait til it breaks, then fix/improve
2.)time/energy vs. performance/reliablity gains

motor on!

Blah, What kind of gains would you get by taking 62 grams off the flywheel?

Blah, I was just gonna post the pic on macdizzy but they dont allow pics or attachments to any posts.

Do they allow any external links at all? ie can you link to a pic server?

A lightened flywheel has less energy when the clutch engages, it also takes less energy to get up to that point. It can be both an advantage and a disadvantage depending on when the clutch engages, gearing, weight of load ect ect. one way to get around it is to trick the clutch so it engages later, gear the bike properly and make sure the clutch engages when there is at least some pipe. The fact you have removed some fins has got to be good power wise on shorter races, don't know how it would be as engine heat rises though? As i may have mentioned earlier, i don't run any fins at all but that's not a track engine, it's a one off.

They allow external links, but I think they'll have to sign up with PBP to view the pics. What pic server should I use?

Ive tested many heads and on my five port head i put the ports about 14mm wide and about 2mm deep which leaves 2mm left of the wall for safety. As a test I added more depth and lost rpms. For a motor that revs high you want velocity not volume. Reminds me of some of the supra guys slapping on the biggest turbo they can find and saying bigger is better, well its not and I will prove it when my dyno gets here. Dallas with all those mods and a .68 jet turning that many rpms be careful bro that is probably running lean as heck!

here ya go then:
http://img189.exs.cx/img189/8092/sux2bu2.jpg