
Which Wood Cylinder Head Brand Wins?
In our test we compared 3 wood cylinder head options head to head. Walnut came out on top. See the measured results, the runner-up, the budget pick, and a link to the full test video.
Osage orange
Affiliate link. We may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.
The quick take
The short version of why each pick lands where it does, built straight from the measured results.
“It is the new champ, lasting well over 2 minutes and 20 seconds. I think it was around 2 minutes and 30 seconds.”
The measured results
Every number below is read straight from the test. Products are listed in the order they finished.
Duration To Failure
- 1Walnut
well over 2 minutes 20 seconds, the narrator estimates around 2 minutes 30 seconds
- 2IPE
three attempts recorded: attempt one burned a hole through the wood and out the side (chapter title separately notes this first attempt 'lasted 25 seconds,' with the chapter title itself flagging that the timer was not accurate), attempt two burned around the spark plug hole causing compression loss, attempt three lasted nearly 2 minutes and is the figure used in the final on-screen comparison
- 3Osage orangeabout2 minutes 20 seconds
Failure Mode
- 1Walnut
massive crack on one side with gas escaping from the other, split at both cylinder head bolts
- 2IPE
attempt one burned through the side of the wood; attempt two lost compression through burning around the spark plug hole
- 3Osage orange
badly charred, was about to fail near the spark plug but ultimate failure occurred at one of the cylinder head bolts
Damage Assessment
- 1Walnut
burned quite a bit with a lot of wood missing, but the burn pattern was very even, which the narrator credits for it lasting the longest
- 2IPE
had the least amount of damage of the three materials tested, even accounting for its shorter run time in the final attempt, which the narrator says demonstrates its ability to resist fire
- 3Osage orange
described as a mix between the walnut and IPE in terms of damage
All measurements (2 more)+
Weight
- 1Walnut10 oz
for a piece the same thickness as the IPE sample but a little longer
- 2IPE10.7 oz
heavier than the walnut sample despite being about a quarter inch shorter
- 3Osage orangenot tested
Compression Test
- 1Walnut62 PSI
sourced from the chapter title 'Compression test (Walnut): 62 PSI' since this figure is not spoken in the narration itself
- 2IPEnot tested
- 3Osage orangenot tested
How it was tested
- run a small engine using a cylinder head machined from each type of wood until it fails, timing duration to failure
- compression test in PSI before running the engine (Walnut only, sourced from chapter title)
- weight comparison between same-thickness wood samples
- post-failure damage and burn pattern assessment
“It is the new champ, lasting well over 2 minutes and 20 seconds. I think it was around 2 minutes and 30 seconds.”
Data notes and caveats
This is a materials test rather than a commercial product/brand showdown: three types of wood (Walnut and IPE, both sent in by viewers, tested fresh in this video; Osage orange used as the prior video's baseline for comparison) are machined into small engine cylinder heads and run until failure. Two prior-video materials, JB Weld (an epoxy patch, held about a minute) and plywood (failed in a few seconds), are mentioned only as historical context and were not tested in this video, so they are excluded from products[] rather than treated as competitors. No prices are mentioned anywhere in this video (viewer-donated wood samples), so priceMentioned is null for all three entries. Chapters usefully fill two real gaps in the spoken narration: a walnut compression test result (62 PSI) that is never spoken aloud, and a note that IPE's first attempt lasted about 25 seconds according to an on-screen timer the chapter title itself flags as inaccurate. Chapters also reveal that three separate cylinder heads were tested for both walnut and IPE, but the transcript only narrates the outcome of the final walnut attempt and all three IPE attempts; earlier walnut attempts are likely shown on screen without corresponding narration. Winner reflects the video's own core question (longest duration before failure); IPE's superior fire/damage resistance despite a shorter recorded run is preserved as a distinct, non-competing observation in its own notes rather than treated as a second winner.
More Myths & Experiments

Which Fuel Saving Devices Brand Wins?
Reduced speed plus increased tire pressure
See the results
Which Diesel Fuel Alternative Brand Wins?
5 products tested
See the results
Which Turpentine As Engine Fuel Additive Brand Wins?
2 products tested
See the results