632 Boss Nine

Go down

632 Boss Nine

Post  racnrick on April 21st 2015, 11:02 pm


racnrick

Posts : 462
Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 61
Location : Puyallup, WA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  res0rli9 on April 22nd 2015, 3:45 am

Could of made more if he didn't have a baby carb on it Question

res0rli9
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 3337
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 68
Location : sarasota FL.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  bruno on April 22nd 2015, 7:53 am

cool deal , i have just never seen "counterweight" on a cam before ..... interesting
avatar
bruno
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 10601
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 45
Location : MILLBROOK , AL.

View user profile http://WWW.CKRME.COM

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  maverick on April 22nd 2015, 8:09 am

res0rli9 wrote:Could of made more if he didn't have a baby carb on it Question

....and slightly smallish headers?
avatar
maverick
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 3052
Join date : 2009-08-06
Age : 66

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  QtrWarrior on April 22nd 2015, 8:12 am

res0rli9 wrote:Could of made more if he didn't have a baby carb on it Question

Should have made ALOT more power period...

My 615 Ahead deal makes 1120....js
avatar
QtrWarrior

Posts : 2559
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 59
Location : Bloomingdale, Ga

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  racnrick on April 22nd 2015, 10:41 am

bruno wrote:cool deal , i have just never seen "counterweight" on a cam before ..... interesting

I have heard of grinding the cam to compensate for the cam twist, but don't see how adding more weight to it would help from it to twist.

racnrick

Posts : 462
Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 61
Location : Puyallup, WA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  Hardy on April 22nd 2015, 10:42 am

This is very interesting. A few years back my dad was trying to figure out what his best avenue would be to go faster than what he was with his fms A 460 deal. He made a phone call to Kaase and had a long discussion (I'm not sure if it was Jon himself or someone else in the shop). Anyway, during the conversation my dad says he asked about the Kaase 9 heads and was told that they were not a good alternative for him because they were just not a "race" head. Regardless of their intended purpose, I would say if they are capable of over 1100 hp with that little carb and little exhaust, they are quite well suited on a race engine. Obviously there are more affordable options for a bracket racer, I just thought it was an interesting conversation looking back,considering what I've seen done with these head lately

Hardy

Posts : 106
Join date : 2014-05-19
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  racnrick on April 22nd 2015, 10:54 am

QtrWarrior wrote:
res0rli9 wrote:Could of made more if he didn't have a baby carb on it Question

Should have made ALOT more power period...

My 615 Ahead deal makes 1120....js

^^^Opps, treed again by my slow typing.

I agree,  but with 632 cubes / 14-1 compression,  I would think the straight out of the box Boss Nine heads would be a restriction from the get go. Don't remember what the flow was out of the box for them, but it has been discussed on whether or not they would make a good "race" head, even if they were ported.

racnrick

Posts : 462
Join date : 2008-12-03
Age : 61
Location : Puyallup, WA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  Hardy on April 22nd 2015, 11:24 am

Yeah that is probably true. But I would say the A head is less than ideal on a 632 out of the box as well. The point probably is that the Boss heads require significantly more work and $ to do the same job as the wedge alternatives.

Hardy

Posts : 106
Join date : 2014-05-19
Location : Wisconsin

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  JBR-3 on April 22nd 2015, 12:30 pm

I'm intrigued by the cam counterweight. I cannot see it being necessary for a couple of reasons.

JBR-3

Posts : 191
Join date : 2009-08-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  kim on April 22nd 2015, 5:32 pm

JBR-3 wrote:I'm intrigued by the cam counterweight. I cannot see it being necessary for a couple of reasons.

Diversion........ don't look at my unique intake, worry about my "balanced" cam.

If it did anything, the prostock cams, the top alcohol cams, and the top fuel cams would all be counter balanced. Lord knows all of them eat a crap load of spring load, and do it at a hell of an RPM.. Prostock and top Alcohol espeacially

kim

Posts : 700
Join date : 2009-06-27
Location : Tucson AZ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  res0rli9 on April 22nd 2015, 10:32 pm

Kaase's 599 Boss that he took to engine masters... He said his Boss heads, capable of funneling in a monster 520 cfm of peak airflow.


Last edited by res0rli9 on April 23rd 2015, 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

res0rli9
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 3337
Join date : 2008-12-02
Age : 68
Location : sarasota FL.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  gt350hr on April 23rd 2015, 11:45 am

That counterweight is useless. "Static balance" on a cam loaded while rotating by 16 spring loaded lifters is imaterial.

gt350hr

Posts : 452
Join date : 2014-08-20
Location : Anaheim , CA

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: 632 Boss Nine

Post  John Myrick on April 23rd 2015, 5:36 pm

So what do the Boss9 heads flow out of the box ?
avatar
John Myrick
BBF CONTRIBUTOR
BBF CONTRIBUTOR

Posts : 1074
Join date : 2011-02-05
Age : 56
Location : Maryland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum