FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: gregaba on July 30, 2021, 02:08:30 PM
-
Looking for some new heads for my 428.
Looks like TFS won't be available till middlr to late sept.
When to BBM site and they have heads for $2250 which makes them competive with the TFS allthough I don't know if they are as good.
What can I expect with these heads.\Install problems,fit etc.
Thanks
Greg
-
Greg, you need to wait for the TFS heads.
-
I wasn't sure what the difference was in the heads but 40 cfm is a lot.
I guess I will wait for some to become available.
I would really like to put together my engine before mother nature takes her toll. I have it soaked in oil and resoak it every week.
After about $2000.00 in machine work including balancing the assembly It worries me that I would have to fix some rust [I know it would be minor]
Greg
-
Brent, I wish the TFS head had been available when I built my 445. Having said that the BBM piece was very well made. What I'm curious about is the difference in the driving experience between the TFS (with 40 more CFM) and the BBM with a blend job. Where do you notice it in ordinary driving (you know, mild start off a stop light, second gear, then a little time at WOT)?
-
...I have it soaked in oil and resoak it every week.
After about $2000.00 in machine work including balancing the assembly It worries me that I would have to fix some rust [I know it would be minor]
Greg
Go to Lowe's and spend 10 bucks on a can of Fluid Film. This stuff is just a step below cosmoline and will protect the parts for a very long time. It doesn't evaporate or drip off. Spray it, bag it, and concentrate on your 12oz. curls.
-
GerryP
Thanks for the tip. I will go get some in the morning.
Greg
-
I do not agree the information that is professed in this thread.
-
One must also ask what flow is required for the intended application?
What displacement and what rpm range will dictate cfm required.
A 500 cfm head on a 6000 rpm 445 inch engine will be a joke.
More flow does not necessarily mean more power.
Are the TFS heads decent - yes.
Are BBM heads equally capable? Yes.
Are Edelbrock heads capable? Yes with the right work.
Promaxx heads modified also seem to work well. Scott Foxwell has a cnc port that is 180cc and hits 340 cfm
445 pump gas build: 586 ft lbs @4600 and 628 hP at 6500 rpm.
Not bad at all!
There are many options for heads.
-
n/m
-
One must also ask what flow is required for the intended application?
What displacement and what rpm range will dictate cfm required.
A 500 cfm head on a 6000 rpm 445 inch engine will be a joke.
More flow does not necessarily mean more power.
Are the TFS heads decent - yes.
Are BBM heads equally capable? Yes.
Are Edelbrock heads capable? Yes with the right work.
Promaxx heads modified also seem to work well. Scott Foxwell has a cnc port that is 180cc and hits 340 cfm
445 pump gas build: 586 ft lbs @4600 and 628 hP at 6500 rpm.
Not bad at all!
There are many options for heads.
All the details of the build do matter, of course, however, just so your 500 cfm comment isn't taken incorrectly... The TFS outflows the common offerings of the other heads, while having a more direct path and smaller port volume. So, in that 330 unported to 360-ish ported (my words) super street market, with the few heads that can run there, the TFS is really hard to beat at that price.
I'd love to see more heads out there at the TFS price and quality, who knows, maybe it will keep going, maybe BBM's new work will force TFS into a revamp to get even better. All good to hear. However, except for the two things Brent mentioned, and one I will, the smaller chamber size can drive compression up with a head swap on an existing build, I am pretty fond of TFS
I will also say that the parts on the set of TFS I did a few days ago were really nice. Valve job was right up there with anyone, springs were within .005 installed height from worst to best as delivered, and the PAC springs were so close, I only had to swap a couple of spring locations to make the numbers almost exactly the same across 16. Pretty good stuff for an off the shelf head
To the original question - I'd wait, if BBM is delivering something that is a TFS beater, maybe I'd wait for that too to see, but either way I'd be waiting LOL
-
The intended use for my 63 is just something to drive and have a little fun in.
Saturday night cruiseing and 8 to 10 trips to the strip a year.
I had a 2013 Boss 302 that I loved but I am 100% disabled and it got to where I couldn't get in and out of the car so after 5 fun years of driving it I sold it for all most as much as I paid for it.
I am using the money from the sale to finance this build.
I have everything for the build except the heads.
I realize that for what I am using the car for I don't need aftermarket heads and the stock heads [c1's] I have would work fine.
I bought the engine complete 30 years ago for $150.00 and they pulled it.
I have been buying parts and storing them since then.
What I have done so far is have the block blueprinted and the assembly balanced.
I have all of Jays parts for the engine except the SOCH covers which I don't need but wish I did.
The block is a 428 .30 over with Scat rods and Autotec forged pistons.
I have a TFS 351C single plane intake and will be using a Holley 780.
I was going to run EFI on it but with the cam I have for it {Ford D Cam] there is no way it will work with it.
After I run the cam for 6 months then I will order a custom roller cam for it but I want to run the D cam for old times sake.
I had a set of Pro Gram 4 bolt caps but the engine builder was againest installing them because he said it might make my block weaker because of how much he would have to remove to install them so I sold them.
I have the 6R80 and adaptor for it. Do not have the driveshaft yet.
I have a 444 Detroit locker [31 spline] for the rear and will be useing the Calvert bars and mono leaf springs.
I have a Taylor-Vertex ingition box and will have to limit my RPM to 6500 because of the 2 bolt main's.
The 63 is a former race car from birth with 22,000 documented miles.
I know the car from new and have all ways wanted it so when the first owner passed away I was able to buy it from the family.
I removed the rollbar and a few of the other racing items to use it on the street.
The wheelbase is 8 inch's less then stock and the car weigh's 3460 Lb's without driver or drivetrain. There is no carpet,sound deadener,heater, or other comforts. I will add carpet and a passenger bucket seat.
This is all I can remember off hand of what I have and how I will use the car and I plan to run like this untill I can get the money for an aluninum block and strocker kit and then build a real engine.
Greg
-
Thanks for that build detail, I was about to ask.
I can see all the points about the heads - looks like flow WILL matter in your case, but so will a better burn where BBM might have an edge, at least so far. The idea of having to sink tons of money into the TFS (no exhaust helicoils with the whole weight of the exhaust rattling on there, and the strange rocker stand pads) - you could use that same money to port & flow the BBM heads so I dont know how to compare them dollar-for-dollar.
What will you run for headers & exhaust?
Compression about 10.0 ?
What stall and gear ratios will you have on that 6R80?
Weight of car?
Either way with the "D" cam in it (probably not ideal as you know) it would be great info to get timeslips with it to compare to the Gonkulator - how "bad" is the D-cam when run out of its intended range like that? Then try another cam & compare timeslips again.
A great C8AX-D cam thread down below, I just asked about valve weights but nobody has answered yet.
-
Greg, would love to see photos of your old '63 race car! Bruce
-
So I forgot the cam and the overall build, any of the heads will work fine, meaning the engine will run, sound wicked and be snarly. In addition, a 4.44 geared 428 is going to feel strong in traffic with a loose converter with any of these
Unported though, keep in mind the difference in a C1 head to a TFS head is about 100 cfm. That being said, if in a hurry, pick the combo that hits the compression numbers you want and timeline you want and go for it.
I sure don't want to open a can a worms, because we beat that horse to death before, but the cam just brings you to a level where, in your case, just have fun with whatever combo you decide. Measuring with a mike, cutting with a hatchet....
Not being a wise butt either, we do things different when we want different things... I did a 397 low riser for a guy recently, we lightened up the valve train and did beehives in a stock C3 head with 11/32 valves, went with a tight LSA cam to get some snot out of it, and rubbed all we could on the roof of the lowriser dual quad to get the air to turn a corner at the carb pads. Never dyno'd, owner's dad was ill and he wanted it in as fast as he could, but it's a little terror and sounds like it's much more than it is. Could it be sent home on a trailer with a milder more modern build? Heck yes, but he is having a blast in it and is super happy.
FWIW - It takes me 150-200 dollars of owners money to get a TFS where I call it right....don't get spooked with "tons of money" It's a cheap way to get into the 330+ cfm small volume intake club
-
I will eun long tube headers. I have run Hooker super comps in all my builds for quit a few years but would consider other brands but we are limited as to what we can buy for the FE
I will run 2 1/2 exhaust with the cut outs-really not sure about the muffler brand yet as that is something I havn't bought yet.
Brent sait I would be 11.4 [Just a guess when I bought the pistons] compression with these pistons.
I really won't know until I mock it up and see how far down the pistons are in the hole.
I have Cometic .40 head gaskets for it.The block was decked to 10.150.
I have yet to order the torque converter so the stall is a question and any suggestions are welcome. Gear ratio is 4.44.
I will provide before and after timeslips as I am wondering about the difference my self.
Fuel will be 130 octane CNG for both the street and strip and I will be using M&H slicks on the strip.
I have been watching the D cam thread as it really interest me.
Greg
-
Bruce
It doesn't look like much now. The owners brother was going to fix it up and started doing some body work on ir because the paint was really bad so he rook some black primer and hit all the thin paint with it.
My friends call it old spot.
I did start on it and have the fenders done but with my trying to get my dads 71 Ranchero done and with work I am limted in time.
Here is a picture.
427 Stang
I have the C1 heads but am not going to use them. I need to get a good set of heads so when I do get to build my stroker motor I will be able to swap them.
I would love to have a set of Jays new heads but they are way out of my budget.
I can do the head work on the TFS so am not worried about it to much.
The 397 sounds like a lot of fun.
Greg
-
n/m
-
For some reason I can only post 1 picture at a time so here is another.
Greg
Found out what I was doing wrong.
-
Greg, thanks for posting those. Aren't all of our cars works in progress? :) a place where I get most of my '63 resto parts is from Bud Potter at budsclassiccars.com.
-
I've seen a lot of fussing about the stand area height on the TFS heads, and while it might be different, how can it be a bad thing? What matters is the final height/geometry- how you get there is irrelevant. I have not seen a set, but does the TFS head not have additional threads to go with the height, with the bottom of the threads being in the same place? My feeble brain can only see that as a positive thing, being that the 4-bolt setup is the weak spot, and additional thread engagement would only make it stronger? Why would you not just leave the head alone and cut/ modify the stands? Leave all the threads and make the stands and beefy as possible, maybe even a Dove-style end stand tying down the ends, with studs, and it would be pretty stout, unless I'm missing something? If there are more threads in the head, I wouldn't even consider cutting them down and lose the extra threads. Might be easier to make a flat cut on the head, but seems counter-productive if you give away thread engagement
-
I've seen a lot of fussing about the stand area height on the TFS heads, and while it might be different, how can it be a bad thing? What matters is the final height/geometry- how you get there is irrelevant. I have not seen a set, but does the TFS head not have additional threads to go with the height, with the bottom of the threads being in the same place? My feeble brain can only see that as a positive thing, being that the 4-bolt setup is the weak spot, and additional thread engagement would only make it stronger? Why would you not just leave the head alone and cut/ modify the stands? Leave all the threads and make the stands and beefy as possible, maybe even a Dove-style end stand tying down the ends, with studs, and it would be pretty stout, unless I'm missing something? If there are more threads in the head, I wouldn't even consider cutting them down and lose the extra threads. Might be easier to make a flat cut on the head, but seems counter-productive if you give away thread engagement
It's a minor inconvenience. If I had my choices, I'd rather not have to do it (LOL), but considering that you're probably gonna end up shimming or cutting the stands on no matter what rocker/head setup you have, it's really no big deal.
-
Guess you're missing my point- I wouldn't even consider cutting the heads, as it would seem to give away strength/rigidity, seems counter-productive. I'd like to give TFS the benefit of the doubt that they might have had that in mind when they designed them that way
-
Guess you're missing my point- I wouldn't even consider cutting the heads, as it would seem to give away strength/rigidity, seems counter-productive. I'd like to give TFS the benefit of the doubt that they might have had that in mind when they designed them that way
Could be, could have been an available longer valve that was more cost effective too, easy way to get a taller installed height in, etc, so they raised the base to keep the relative geometry the same. Could even be in prep to make room for a future high port Track Heat, not sure. I thought we had a TFS guy post here at one point, it would be neat to know why.
Brent makes a good point too, lots of iron and other aluminum out there that few checked in the old days. It's not like all others are perfect, it's just another thing to check during blueprinting
That being said, strength or no strength, I agree, cutting a stand is cheap and easy, cutting the head could get goofy at the oil feed. It's really no big deal, me and my guy made a little jig that locates off of a cut rocker shaft, I drop them off, he sets up and cuts them all in one or two steps, depending on what I bring him. Says he feels guilty charging me it's so quick
-
That being said, strength or no strength, I agree, cutting a stand is cheap and easy, cutting the head could get goofy at the oil feed. It's really no big deal, me and my guy made a little jig that locates off of a cut rocker shaft, I drop them off, he sets up and cuts them all in one or two steps, depending on what I bring him. Says he feels guilty charging me it's so quick
Yep, you can cut them all at once that way
-
Guess you're missing my point- I wouldn't even consider cutting the heads, as it would seem to give away strength/rigidity, seems counter-productive. I'd like to give TFS the benefit of the doubt that they might have had that in mind when they designed them that way
Yep, I think you missed mine too. I've never cut the heads and don't. I always cut the stands if they need to be cut. They do have plenty of thread depth and there are ARP studs available for them that are longer, so you can take advantage of the thread depth.
-
Thanks for that build detail, I was about to ask.
I can see all the points about the heads - looks like flow WILL matter in your case, but so will a better burn where BBM might have an edge, at least so far. The idea of having to sink tons of money into the TFS (no exhaust helicoils with the whole weight of the exhaust rattling on there, and the strange rocker stand pads) - you could use that same money to port & flow the BBM heads so I dont know how to compare them dollar-for-dollar.
What will you run for headers & exhaust?
Compression about 10.0 ?
What stall and gear ratios will you have on that 6R80?
Weight of car?
Either way with the "D" cam in it (probably not ideal as you know) it would be great info to get timeslips with it to compare to the Gonkulator - how "bad" is the D-cam when run out of its intended range like that? Then try another cam & compare timeslips again.
A great C8AX-D cam thread down below, I just asked about valve weights but nobody has answered yet.
Since when do you have to sink so much money into a TFS head, so that porting heads would be more beneficial? I've never repaired an exhaust flange thread hole on the TFS. Ever. Would I rather see helicoils? Yeah. Is it that big of a deal? Nope. As far as rocker stands, it's an easy job if you have to cut them, but I've collaborated with POP to offer stands that are already cut. With that being said, it shouldn't have had to be done, but it's not as big of a faux pas as everyone likes to point out.
You're looking at $1920 for a set of TFS heads, with PAC springs, Crane retainers, etc. Is it more worthwhile to pay $2250 for BBM heads, then pay more to have them ported just because the exhaust flanges don't have inserts????
As far as chamber shape, the TFS is just as good. In most cases, total timing runs anywhere from 28-32°. One of my customers who bracket races is running them at 28°.
That's good to know that there's $330 of "room" if you get TFS vs BBM.
Seems that might get you the special stands (good idea, seems better than cutting the heads), and the inserts.
TFS should add inserts & throw a set of stands in, raise the price $200, then they're all good to go. Otherwise it's "Complicated".
Hey, maybe you've run those aluminum exhaust threads longer than I know but I don't trust aluminum, I've worked with it too much. That's a lot of exhaust weight and a lot of vibration on there to go 50,000 miles or so down crap roads that USA & states wont spend the money to fix. Let alone a bunch of in & out teardowns on those road-abused threads. Slightly less risk with a vertical bolt pattern but still risky.
So they seem about even, $330 cheaper for the TFS but (to me at least) you're not done yet.
I do think the BBM burn is slightly better from dyno data & the Gonkulator, but not quite enough to make up for the 40cfm.
The TFS flow a little better on the exhaust too don't they?
The competition is good - they're both leaving Edelbrock in the dust.
-
Thanks for that build detail, I was about to ask.
I can see all the points about the heads - looks like flow WILL matter in your case, but so will a better burn where BBM might have an edge, at least so far. The idea of having to sink tons of money into the TFS (no exhaust helicoils with the whole weight of the exhaust rattling on there, and the strange rocker stand pads) - you could use that same money to port & flow the BBM heads so I dont know how to compare them dollar-for-dollar.
What will you run for headers & exhaust?
Compression about 10.0 ?
What stall and gear ratios will you have on that 6R80?
Weight of car?
Either way with the "D" cam in it (probably not ideal as you know) it would be great info to get timeslips with it to compare to the Gonkulator - how "bad" is the D-cam when run out of its intended range like that? Then try another cam & compare timeslips again.
A great C8AX-D cam thread down below, I just asked about valve weights but nobody has answered yet.
Since when do you have to sink so much money into a TFS head, so that porting heads would be more beneficial? I've never repaired an exhaust flange thread hole on the TFS. Ever. Would I rather see helicoils? Yeah. Is it that big of a deal? Nope. As far as rocker stands, it's an easy job if you have to cut them, but I've collaborated with POP to offer stands that are already cut. With that being said, it shouldn't have had to be done, but it's not as big of a faux pas as everyone likes to point out.
You're looking at $1920 for a set of TFS heads, with PAC springs, Crane retainers, etc. Is it more worthwhile to pay $2250 for BBM heads, then pay more to have them ported just because the exhaust flanges don't have inserts????
As far as chamber shape, the TFS is just as good. In most cases, total timing runs anywhere from 28-32°. One of my customers who bracket races is running them at 28°.
That's good to know that there's $330 of "room" if you get TFS vs BBM.
Seems that might get you the special stands (good idea, seems better than cutting the heads), and the inserts.
TFS should add inserts & throw a set of stands in, raise the price $200, then they're all good to go. Otherwise it's "Complicated".
Hey, maybe you've run those aluminum exhaust threads longer than I know but I don't trust aluminum, I've worked with it too much. That's a lot of exhaust weight and a lot of vibration on there to go 50,000 miles or so down crap roads that USA & states wont spend the money to fix. Let alone a bunch of in & out teardowns on those road-abused threads. Slightly less risk with a vertical bolt pattern but still risky.
So they seem about even, $330 cheaper for the TFS but (to me at least) you're not done yet.
I do think the BBM burn is slightly better from dyno data & the Gonkulator, but not quite enough to make up for the 40cfm.
The TFS flow a little better on the exhaust too don't they?
The competition is good - they're both leaving Edelbrock in the dust.
I'll have to double check, but I don't think *any* TFS heads (or AFR for that matter) have helicoils in the exhaust. I agree, it's nicer to have them in there, but just think about how many SBF TFS heads are running around out there and how you never see it mentioned as being a problem. I can't really see it being a problem either, unless someone's ham-fisted and can't figure out how to start a bolt straight.
Cutting stands for the TFS may cost you $100. If you buy the stands from POP they are the same price as the regular stands.
The BBM head has a nicer exhaust, but it doesn't really seem to matter much.
-
TFS heads are cast by Edelbrock. Just got a new set with the Edelbrock logo visible. To get the same flow from the BBM as the TFS, you will need an additional $600-800.00 for the CNC program depending on who cuts them. That puts the BBM CNC a lot further out of reach for some folks. Joe-JDC
-
Any wish to comment on what " Yellow Truck " posted ??
...
. Brent, I wish the TFS head had been available when I built my 445. Having said that the BBM piece was very well made. What I'm curious about is the difference in the driving experience between the TFS (with 40 more CFM) and the BBM with a blend job. Where do you notice it in ordinary driving (you know, mild start off a stop light, second gear, then a little time at WOT)?
...
My question is the same except for a 398 or 418 if I may please
Ricky.
-
Ditto
Any wish to comment on what " Yellow Truck " posted ??
...
. Brent, I wish the TFS head had been available when I built my 445. Having said that the BBM piece was very well made. What I'm curious about is the difference in the driving experience between the TFS (with 40 more CFM) and the BBM with a blend job. Where do you notice it in ordinary driving (you know, mild start off a stop light, second gear, then a little time at WOT)?
...
My question is the same except for a 398 or 418 if I may please
Ricky.
In the real world, does too much flow at a high lift just give you a turgid experience during ordinary street use?
-
even with helicoils on the exhaust you still need to be careful with the bbms.i striped out 2 or 3 holes with a little 4 inch wrench.about the time you think it is snug its about to strip if you tighten just a little too much.
-
Any wish to comment on what " Yellow Truck " posted ??
...
. Brent, I wish the TFS head had been available when I built my 445. Having said that the BBM piece was very well made. What I'm curious about is the difference in the driving experience between the TFS (with 40 more CFM) and the BBM with a blend job. Where do you notice it in ordinary driving (you know, mild start off a stop light, second gear, then a little time at WOT)?
...
My question is the same except for a 398 or 418 if I may please
Ricky.
The second half of the equation is the port volume, you won't lose anywhere with a TFS if the BBM or iron has an equal or larger port. Extra flow with the same port volume means a more efficient port, at least until the port is maxed out at high RPM or big cubes and gets too fast.
I can't believe any of us did the same combo exactly then drove them after a head change, However, an "almost the same combo" if there is one, between the two links below show the difference in curve between a 295 cfm CJ and a 335 cfm TFS, both very streetable and pump gas
Here is the iron (295 cfm CnC ported CJs, 2.19/170, ported CJ intake)
(https://i.postimg.cc/ncBGzB3M/Dyno1chart.jpg)
TFS heads, actually 2 degrees less .050, ported -F PI
(https://i.postimg.cc/pTZMC9Rv/Gary461-FEchart.jpg)
Just follow the first 4 lines in the HP and torque columns. Keep in mind these are 15 inch vacuum, built to sorta sound like a stock CJ. As we play with different valve events, I think there is still more in them, even with a 235 degree mellow cam. 40+ lbs of torque is significant.
I am not a BBM guy, not against, just haven't used any. Engine 1 was going to be a BBM build but we decided to go iron. I would expect that the right BBM would close up the HP gap, but be slightly behind on torque. Just my gut though, because as delivered an equally priced BBM can't flow what a TFS does, and my thought is that if you make it flow, you need to spend a little port volume which would slow the port down low
Both of the builds are very gentle but when you get a full foot of carb, they breathe deeper than the RPM peak indicates. Additionally, the cost of the CnC ported CJs were more than the TFS, but engine 1 is in a very rare car and owner wanted it to look bone stock
Here are the builds.
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=7690.0
http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=8111.0
One last comment, what happens on a 397 or 416? IMHO, the smaller the engine, and or the lower the RPM peak, the more the TFS gap will widen. Now, if the new BBM port is small high and fast, then it could be the new king. However, right now, I do not believe that there is a head other than a custom program that will be as small in volume and flow the numbers of the TFS
-
N/M
-
I usually don’t make comments like that unless I have dyno testing to back up my comments.
-
Steve, I know you were making a point that everything doesn't have to be Formula 1 car optimized, and even then, no two guys agree, but I just want to make sure you aren't thinking Brent and I are too far apart, because we generally aren't
First, that cam will be a terror in a 427 with TFS and match your use....period, don't lose a bit of sleep over it. In fact, lash the exhaust .006-.008 tighter if you want to gain a bit of exhaust duration, but regardless I'd expect it to run very strong
Now, what would a custom cam do? As you refine the build, as in talking about a stroker in one post, or even if you went pure custom with the 427, it could change entirely, and depending on goals, it may not just be peak power, it could be more vacuum and give up power if that was the goal. End use always matters when talking cams, possibly more than most any other component. I spend more time on a build to figure out what that "big thing or things" a guy wants an engine to do, and sometimes they don't know
Some custom cams drive more vacuum, some use all the lift, some focus on torque, some focus on pure HP. As initially said, This is a decent lobe design, Crower is nothing to sneeze at, a custom flat tappet may gain in some areas, cost in others, but this is a pretty good match for your combo. If I was going custom and staying flat tappet, I might sneak a little more lift out of a lobe, but then you are likely going to have to swap springs. After a year of playing with TFS, and watching Brent too, I'd likely add some exhaust, but then I would spread centers and add lift too, how much...depends on end use. You can cheat there too, lash is a significant tuning tool
Additionally, you likely would not find a cam like that on Comp's shelf, Crower (like this one) and Howard's oddly enough tend to have a little better design over the SBC generic
There is no free chicken, and a custom cam like Brent provides matches the entire build and use exactly. I do custom choices too, when everything is blueprinted carefully and planned ahead of time, it's hard to beat. That being said, it does support your point "could be that both are right"
-
Regarding custom camshafts.
Ask any number of FE engine builders and you will get different recommendations for a "custom" camshaft.
Ask Blair, Brent, Barry, Craft, Robert Pond, Scott Foxwell, and other FE builders and you will not get the same "custom" camshaft specs.
Pick the guy you like and don't look back. You will likely never do a back to back camshaft comparison.
Some of the FE builders have learned from experience what is likely to work better. But even that is sometimes a miss when going for a few more HP. Even experts disagree.
In the end if you have unusable power in first, second and perhaps 3rd gear then you made the right choice - regardless if another grind was worth 20 HP more (or perhaps less).
Cheers!!
Hot rodding is fun!
-
Temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, water temperature, oil temperature will change 20 horsepower in a single day. Seen it happen many times on the dyno with same engine. Joe-JDC
-
Greg I sent you a PM on some headers, may even have some heads you'd be interested in for your build.
-
With all due respect to everyone here, I'm not nowhere near off the knowledge and experience as the rest of y'all here , it would seem to me in my humble and honest opinion that unless a person is wanting to squeeze every last hp and tq out of a motor, that either the TFS or BBM would be an excellent choice . It really just boils down to availability and how soon a person wants to get a motor together. With all that said if it were me I would go with the BBM'S.
-
Knowing I left 15hp behind by not waiting on a part would bother me every time I drove my car. Even knowing that may be stupid it would still bother me.
-
Know what you mean but.....
Unless it's a racer where one can track e.t., mph, or elapsed time on a road or oval, one will not miss that 15HP at all. The reason why is that on a cool day, an engine can easily pickup that small percentage of hp merely due to the weather. On a really hot day, even the best tune can lose that hp in a hurry.
Race is not equal to street in most applications.
-
Knowing I left 15hp behind by not waiting on a part would bother me every time I drove my car. Even knowing that may be stupid it would still bother me.
A street car with (even with 275/60 15 drag radials) and a real 500+ HP and 550+ ft lbs of torque will absolutely destroy tires in first and second gear. Street roads are very slippery even with drag radials.
At this power level you will not be able to tell the difference between 15 HP more or less.
-
Knowing I left 15hp behind by not waiting on a part would bother me every time I drove my car. Even knowing that may be stupid it would still bother me.
You’ll need a set of Pro Ports then , they are available too
-
Just install Nitrous Oxide. Then every time you say oh shoot, think we’re down 15 horse, you can grab a handful of kit. Should break the tires loose too. After you’re done, you can just go back to leaving 15 horse on the table.
-
Gotta look at the price as well.
Are you spending the same amount and losing 15-20 hp? Or are you paying more and losing 15-20 hp?
-
I have BBMs on my mild 390 with a little 224* roller, and I have a set of TFS sitting here as well....maybe a back to back is in order :)
I guess I don't see where the debate is, TFS flows more through a smaller port for $600 less. I don't know enough to know if somehow wet flow is horrible on the TFS, or if they stall early (every indication is they're fine for most hydraulic roller combos that aren't 500ci+), but doesn't seem like it's an issue as they seem to dyno in line with expectations.
Any BBM/Edelbrock that can run with them is being ported which brings the port energy into question as they're already larger. As stated, I'm sure there are applications where the air speed gets too high with the TFS and a larger port would work better, does anyone know how much the TFS can be opened? My understanding is TFS is usually pretty good about leaving meat in the ports. I know it's sort of unchartered territory to go grinding on CNC'd heads, but small block guys do it all the time.
-
I have BBMs on my mild 390 with a little 224* roller, and I have a set of TFS sitting here as well....maybe a back to back is in order :)
I guess I don't see where the debate is, TFS flows more through a smaller port for $600 less. I don't know enough to know if somehow wet flow is horrible on the TFS, or if they stall early (every indication is they're fine for most hydraulic roller combos that aren't 500ci+), but doesn't seem like it's an issue as they seem to dyno in line with expectations.
Any BBM/Edelbrock that can run with them is being ported which brings the port energy into question as they're already larger. As stated, I'm sure there are applications where the air speed gets too high with the TFS and a larger port would work better, does anyone know how much the TFS can be opened? My understanding is TFS is usually pretty good about leaving meat in the ports. I know it's sort of unchartered territory to go grinding on CNC'd heads, but small block guys do it all the time.
We have a port setup for them that increases the port volume by 10cc and increases the cfm to right at 360 cfm. Works well on the larger 496-500ci street engines. Haven't tried it yet on a zippy smaller engine.
-
With all due respect to everyone here, I'm not nowhere near off the knowledge and experience as the rest of y'all here , it would seem to me in my humble and honest opinion that unless a person is wanting to squeeze every last hp and tq out of a motor, that either the TFS or BBM would be an excellent choice . It really just boils down to availability and how soon a person wants to get a motor together. With all that said if it were me I would go with the BBM'S.
To each his own. I have a set of BBM heads, and had I been given the choice I'd have gone TFS even if it meant waiting. Still curious what the driving experience difference would be. In my truck I can break the tires loose up to 35 mph, but it is nose heavy so that isn't really a big test.
-
I have 2 problems with the TFS heads. 1) rocker stands require milling, they missed the mark a little bit here. I realize it's a totally fixable situation, but a little annoying. 2) the bigger problem is the port design. When flowing the TFS heads they go turbulent/backwards after .630-.640" of lift. For most street engines this doesn't affect anything, but it bugs me that they let it roll off the assembly line like this. They had to of known it occurs, because even I know it does, but they didn't bother to rectify the problem. Seems to me that they got 94% of the way there and let it roll before making it to 100%.
As for an opinion between the 2 brands, I don't think I really have one. There's a fair bit of innovation that sounds like it's going to hit the FE market within the next year. Good time to be an FE guy.
-
It's wonderful that there are so many cylinder head choices for these dinosaurs. From Blairs Pro Ports and Jay's FE Mega Power stuff, to the more street oriented TFS, BBM, Pro Maxx, and Edelbrock stuff.
It would appear that the TFS has a repeatable advantage...right now. AND they're the cheapest. When does that ever happen? All seem pretty equal in quality.
The catch is, unless your car dead hooks 'n books 20hp is fairly inconsequential. But it's everything to a guy that sells motors. If you can fry 'em through 3rd with iron heads, you'll fry 'em better with 50 more hp, I guess, too.
My little cylinder head story? I built my first 427, actually a 452, in 1985. It had some milled-to-death Hi Riser heads that I bought at FPP. They were assembled by stock racer Greg Foreman. It was always a crap shoot when I would put the top end together if it would leak water because I didn't want to mill the factory Hi Riser intake. When sealed up the car ran very good, low 11's with a .590 lift 300 advertised duration single pattern cam ground on 108 centers. I drove it all over the place here in L.A.
I really got tired of the "Hi Riser Hassle". When I found out that Edelbrock was coming out with an FE head I headed over to legendary Blairs Speed Shop in Pasadena. I told Phil Lukens that as soon as these heads are actually available to get some. Some 76cc heads soon showed up.
I had Blair's install 2.19 and 1.75 valves and do a bowl clean up. I matched the heads with a Port-O-Sonic intake manifold.
Took it to the track and guess what? It ran the same. Boy, was it nice to have some new non-beat-up-crap!
I have been a fan of the Edelbrock head, and all Edelbrock products, for a long time. I remember Mark Artis and the Texas Thunder boys running in the 9's with much reworked Edelbrock heads. The TFS is an Edelbrock head and so are Blairs Pro Ports. They certainly have gone the extra mile for us FE guys.
-
Two thumbs up Tommy-T
Well said!!
-
Sad that it's so hard to get parts right now.
I was about ready to Gonkulate this thing after another in-depth look at the C8AX-D cam.
Then I read the CNG part - I have never done much with CNG but it seems like the fuel then takes up a lot of volume - where is it sprayed into the engine?
At the carb base like TBI, or at the head face like port injection?
Either way, that's a lot more volume of fuel+air trying to get into the cylinder.
So it looks like intake flow is all the more important.
The big "D" cam's single pattern might not be so bad here if more intake flow is needed for the extra "moles" going in.
I started looking back at the BBM vs TFS head flows - then at their websites, BBM now shows what THEY get for the BBM_CNC heads:
Eg 321 intake 226 exhaust at .500, no pipe:
https://bearblockmotors.com/bbm-ford-fe-cylinder-heads/
And then the TFS heads from their site:
Eg 317 intake 239 exhaust at .500, 2" pipe
https://static.trickflow.com/global/images/chartsguides/t/tfs-56417001-c00_pv.pdf
My impression was the TFS intake would outflow the BBM, but does that change with the CNC_BBMs?
And that is super good flow from the TFS exhaust - are they really that good?
Any flow tests of out-of-box BBM_CNC vs TFS_CNC under the same conditions?
Seems its even harder to compare flow benches than to compare dynos.
Chamber size is another issue, TFS says 70cc, BBM says 75cc but more like 80cc for CNC.
And reliability - I hate parts that dont fit and threads that strip. I think in 50 some years I've only had 2 threads strip in cast iron heads.
-
When you look at the BBM flow, it notes that the numbers are for 2.25 x 1.71 valves 346 x 245. The base price is for 2.15 x 1.65, a 5% and 4% difference. If you reduce the flow by those same numbers, they are 231 x 235 @ .600.
The TFS heads by their info are 332 x 245 @ .600, with 2.19 x 1.625 but, the heads that Brent had flowed where 333 x 220, a pretty big difference. I wonder where that 25 cfm went?
A big difference is that it seems from Brent's test, that the port backs up, after .600 and if you can believe BBM's numbers, they keep flowing up to .900.
So, with a high lift cam, the BBM's might be much better.
I chose the TFS because of price and that I wanted my lift to be under .650, so I could still use stock rockers. I'd sure like to have that extra 25 cfm on the Ex though. But, maybe it was just that particular set that Brent had for the test, that was the problem? IDK
-
I don’t have info as to how Brent flowed the heads, but even doing everything correctly there’s a fairly wide margin in figures based on using a pipe, and what size is used. TFS flowed it with a 2” which is fairly large for an FE
If you haven’t seen it, this guy does a great job showing results. He’s fairly new to YouTube but is a fairly well known head porter and gives good info, flow info stArts around 28:00
https://youtu.be/DNfA7XD7xYM
-
Several things to note here:
Port volume plays a huge role in what a cylinder head does. Does anyone know the port volume of the CNC ported BBM head? The TFS heads flow 330-340 on a 169.5-170cc port and around 360 cfm on a 180cc port. A non-CNC ported BBM head flows around 290 cfm here.
The box stock heads do start to back up flow. I made TFS aware of it, but I'm sure they know it, and who am I in the grand scheme of things? However, I will say that out of the box they can do some great things, even with a much higher lift cam than what you would expect to use. I made almost 670 hp from 449 cubic inches with a .700" gross lift camshaft. No head work. Any FE that makes around 1.5 hp/ci here is a pretty stout FE.
My flow numbers on heads that I flow here do not use the pipe. So if you're wondering why the 25cfm of exhaust flow magically disappeared, that's why. On the ported TFS heads, they come from my porter's shop and he does use the pipe, so those numbers will reflect that.
-
A couple of comments
1 - I have never stripped an aluminum thread if proper engagement depth, not ham-fisted, and have yet to have an issue with any head if using good anti-seize
2 - Sealing an exhaust has less to do with torque and more to do with matching parts and good assembly, it's not like we are torquing mains
3 - In general, I'd rather have a small chamber, less piston weight than a larger chamber with more piston weight. The second benefit is surface area and clean burn path. The latter not a big issue with 69.8 vs 72-76 but in general.....
4 - Comparing a CnC BBM to a TFS is fine, and for big gulping, big inch, high RPM motors, is likely a valid comparison, but the small time the valve touches the lift that creates backup, the ability to touch a few areas to eliminate that, and the amount of deflection you see when running the spring pressures required for that cam, most of the guys here, including me, will never have to worry about it
5 - Comparing a CnC BBM to a TFS is also fine if someone lists price for each. That last bit of CFM needs to be weighed against what I think is a significantly higher price (but I have never had a set of CnC BBMs in my hands)
6 - Port volume does matter as Brent said. Huge "it depends" here, but more volume will want more overlap (in general) and to get that flow, if the BBM is significantly bigger, yes it has more potential, but the TFS works real well even with very small overlap values. A lower flowing port like the non-CnC BBM will likely want a little bit more overlap to fill the cylinder.
7 - 550-ish HP at 5750 from a 231 duration cam, with 114 LSA and less than 63 degrees overlap and just at 600 ft lbs. This is a truck motor with off the shelf parts. Sort of shows how these work for "Everyday Joe"
I am a TFS fan, for now, had a single set of BBMs though here and they were gorgeous, never used a CnC BBM, but for me, there has to be a very good reason to shift upwards in price or downwards in flow with a standard head. Maybe an existing build that would be too high in compression? However, they aren't the end-all, just a real good head, and readily available
-
Werbyford
CNG is injected into the manifold in each runner [port injection] with their own injector. It is a gas as injected and is injected at a fairly low pressure.
It is compressed only for storage as if it wasn't compressed you couldn't get enough in the tank to do any good.
I will have to use bank to bank injection at first and then after I get my MS3 will switch to sequencial [?sp].
I would be interested in a gronk on the gas only just to compare when I do get the engine in the car and dynoed.
By the was the kit cost is $1495 for everything except the storeage tank.
I have to send in my interior trunk size to see what the tank will cost.
They have a tank made for a Crown Vic that I think will fit but if not he can make dual tanks.
The Crown tank is $2900.00.
Greg
-
As stated in another place, I have flowed the CNC'd BBM heads, and they were in the 336 cfm range at .750". The CNC combustion chamber is listed as 80 ccs. The price for assembled BBM heads is listed as $2550.00 plus shipping, and you will have to add CNC porting on top of that plus any spring and retainer changes. The larger valves will make a difference in flow by themselves, and using a pipe on the exhaust usually amounts to 20 cfm difference at the top of the lift on a sliding scale. Less at lower lifts, more at higher lifts. I don't usually flow anything higher than .800" since most folks usually have a camshaft with less than .650" lift on the street. I can flow to 1.100", but that is on special requests. Joe-JDC
-
I’m not going to pretend I know cylinder heads like some of the guys on here but I myself have out of the box survivals, I believe they flow the same as an out of the box BBM. I’m under the impression that the TFS heads come CNCd out of the box. I believe the CNCd Survivals flow 360 cfm is there a reason why they don’t get bunched in in this conversation. Now when I got my Survivals there was no BBMs or TFS so at the time I had thought they were way ahead of what was out there.
-
For anyone interested I had just scaned the directions for the install of the ecu for the CNG and missed some of it.
After reading the whole thing the ECU is a port injection unit and you just imput the fireing order for the injectors.
Greg
-
For anyone interested I had just scaned the directions for the install of the ecu for the CNG and missed some of it.
After reading the whole thing the ECU is a port injection unit and you just imput the fireing order for the injectors.
Greg
Greg, if the programming allows it, I have a decent Excel spreadsheet to program injector firing to match cam events. Very few programs will support it, and it really doesn't do anything for peak power, really just to tame it a bit down low. Dig through your instructions and if able to, happy to plug your numbers in.
-
Thanks for the offer and I think I will need it.
The way the instructions read they use the map from the old ecm of the car to map their fuel curve.
These are programed for use on a a fuel injector car. I know I am not making much sense explaining but their program is not set up for a carb car.
I am going to make my own fuel curve and go with it.
I do have experence with this useing the Fast XFI system as I have done a few of these for friends [what a pain].
If not I have access to the tuner who tunes the 55 Chevy on the street outlaw racers. It will cost a bit but might be worth it not to have to go though a couple of months of aggrivation.
I will have to call and find out if their program will allow spread sheat input but even if they don't I can use it as a base and tune from their because I can imput manually.
Greg
-
I’m not going to pretend I know cylinder heads like some of the guys on here but I myself have out of the box survivals, I believe they flow the same as an out of the box BBM. I’m under the impression that the TFS heads come CNCd out of the box. I believe the CNCd Survivals flow 360 cfm is there a reason why they don’t get bunched in in this conversation. Now when I got my Survivals there was no BBMs or TFS so at the time I had thought they were way ahead of what was out there.
I think it's two-fold. One, the BBMs already cost $600 more than TFS so the assumption is the CNC'd BBM is in another price class. Two, the BBM is already larger than the TFS, so the CNC BBM is in another class size wise. Normally it wouldn't seem "fair" to compare CNC'd heads to as cast, but when they're cheaper and roughly the same size, it's a more natural comparison. This came up back in the day with the TFS R heads when the AFR 205 first came out.
-
Hmm, did dig up an A-B comparison of TFS vs BBM CNC on the same bench. As the title states, results are surprising. The numbers don't seem to jive with other published numbers, but heads done on same bench are definitely the best comparison.
https://www.fordfe.com/bbm-cnc-vs-trick-flow-out-of-the-box-surprising-t162336.html
Also, I hear "flow isn't everything" parroted quite a bit. I agree. But if both are similarly prepped with proper valve and throat size, and valve job, and both are modern chambers with good quench....is the smaller cross section with better average flow not the preferred head for a majority of builds (not talking about an 8000rpm 510ci all out drag build)?
With those elements all known, are they talking about airspeed being too high in the small head where it's going to be turbulent on an actual running engine? Could it be a low floor/short turn showing good flow but causing fuel shear or turbulence on a running engine?
-
I’m not going to pretend I know cylinder heads like some of the guys on here but I myself have out of the box survivals, I believe they flow the same as an out of the box BBM. I’m under the impression that the TFS heads come CNCd out of the box. I believe the CNCd Survivals flow 360 cfm is there a reason why they don’t get bunched in in this conversation. Now when I got my Survivals there was no BBMs or TFS so at the time I had thought they were way ahead of what was out there.
The Survival is another cast by Edelbrock.
That makes the Survival head, Blair's Pro Ports, TFS, and, of course, the Edelbrock offerings, all legacies of Vic. Many thanks to them. And thanks to those who commissioned Edelbrock to cast their heads.
I had the Bill Ballinger BBM heads finished by Scott Foxwell. SI valves generously provided by Lykins Motorsports. With just a valve job and throat work they flow 302@.600
You can see the work done to these particular BBM heads on the Foxwell Facebook page.
-
Hmm, did dig up an A-B comparison of TFS vs BBM CNC on the same bench. As the title states, results are surprising. The numbers don't seem to jive with other published numbers, but heads done on same bench are definitely the best comparison.
https://www.fordfe.com/bbm-cnc-vs-trick-flow-out-of-the-box-surprising-t162336.html
Also, I hear "flow isn't everything" parroted quite a bit. I agree. But if both are similarly prepped with proper valve and throat size, and valve job, and both are modern chambers with good quench....is the smaller cross section with better average flow not the preferred head for a majority of builds (not talking about an 8000rpm 510ci all out drag build)?
With those elements all known, are they talking about airspeed being too high in the small head where it's going to be turbulent on an actual running engine? Could it be a low floor/short turn showing good flow but causing fuel shear or turbulence on a running engine?
I had found that thread (again) & it's one reason I asked. In that thread the BBM intake seems more like a CNC number, but the exhaust looks too low to be CNC. The TFS exhaust looks higher than Brent's "no pipe" flow but is close to the TFS website's "with pipe" flow.
It now seem like their websites arent that far out of line, and if you compare BBM_CNC with NO pipe to TFS_CNC with NO pipe (subtract about 25 from their website numbers) they're pretty close. They are pretty close in burn efficiency too from the dyno data I've seen, BBM may even have a slight edge but too close to call. So it's down to price reliability, and availability.
As far as reliability, well of course header bolts aren't main caps, but that is part of the problem- they see a similar environment. They've got heavy headers with a long swing-arm hanging off them, with a cam shaking them every rev for 50,000 miles and 100,000 traffic lights. (We add as many traffic lights as we can here in CA for Safety, and sometimes just to Hate on Cars in general). With that kind of vibration environment I'd prefer inserts in aluminum- but not if THEY are going to strip out. I'm just over-cautious with aluminum - I know people use those carb plates to pull an engine/trans from an aluminum intake, which I would never do, but it seems to work.
On price I fully agree, if BBM is that far out on price - you do have to allow some bucks to get TFS stands cut, and I shudder to think what that would cost out here in CA, we have so many people to feed, so likely best to buy stands milled to order, but seems the BBM are still higher. Maybe TFS will update theirs to 2% inflation when they come back out & they'll be $2800/pair.
-
One just needs to get just a few of the 1 Trillion dollars that the fed is printing every day.
I wish I could just create money out of thin air.
Cheers!!
-
Kaase says flow isn’t everything often , he says you can port his P51’s out to his new B9 specs but they’ll be 75 horse down on the dyno
-
.......................
-
Thank you, Blair, That should be a awesome, informative test. an you give us any basic cam info for it?
BTW, I always look forward to hearing your thoughts on FE's.
-
Nice work Blair. Thank you.
-
Thank you for the info, Blair, and for going into some specifics on the TFS.
-
I’ll add my thanks Blair. I really enjoy reading the what you have to say.
Understand about the time it takes to do that and why can be a pain.
Just know that it’s appreciated by us mere mortals here when you or ANY of the builders give us information.
-
Blair - I too appreciate all of the hard work. Thanks for taking the time out to push the FE forward. You are really appreciated around here!
-
Well after reading these posts I guess I will wait for the new head designs to come out [as if I have a choice]. I hope the come out before I kick off.
I am interested in Blairs post on the noisy flow in the heads at lift.
I am not a head man and really don't understand what it means, I assume it means that the flow is interupted and bouncing back and slowing the flow?
Cost is a factor in what I buy.
I am 100% disabled and on a fixed income so I have to get the most from my dollars.
The car I am building is not a all out race engine but just something to have some fun in so I don't have to have the latest and most HP in my engine. I am shooting for an honest 425 HP.
Greg
-
Nevermind.
-
Well after reading these posts I guess I will wait for the new head designs to come out [as if I have a choice]. I hope the come out before I kick off.
I am interested in Blairs post on the noisy flow in the heads at lift.
I am not a head man and really don't understand what it means, I assume it means that the flow is interupted and bouncing back and slowing the flow?
Cost is a factor in what I buy.
I am 100% disabled and on a fixed income so I have to get the most from my dollars.
The car I am building is not a all out race engine but just something to have some fun in so I don't have to have the latest and most HP in my engine. I am shooting for an honest 425 HP.
Greg
Blair -
I too very much appreciate when you DO have the time to post.
Very much looking forward to the Dueling 390s again.
If the factory iron heads can be CNC'd that good they will be a big hit. A lot of cars will want that F.A.S.T. look of factory iron parts for original appearance.
Greg -
LOL per what I've Gonkulated so far, you could shove a little Comp 270S in there with ANY of those heads, BBM, TFS_CNC, or BBM_CNC, and hit 425hp even on CNG. The 11.4 CR, which from what I've read the CNG should tolerate just fine, helps, even though CNG hurts the volumetric efficiency. The giant C8AX-D cam should make more than that but will be very hard to live with and keep clean.
-
Werbyford
For what i plan to do with the car I can live with the D cam good. This build started out being a stock build for a everyday driver but I just don't need another driver.
I have my 2013 F250 and a 19 Fusion and my 71 Ranchero 429 CJ for that all that though I completly changed the suspension on the Ranchero to drive road races when I can.
More then likely the 63 won't see 2000 miles a year.
I had my 13 Boss 302 for 5 years and only put 23,000 miles on it.
The longest trip I will take with the 63 will be a 180 mile round trip when I go to the drag strip a few times a year.
It will just be a fun car and I was hoping for an honest 425 HP at the rear wheels.
I hope I can hit that mark as my Boss had 444 HP and it was a rocket.
The only things I am waiting on to get it running are the heads and driveshaft as I have everything else.
When I get it running I will pull it in the shop and paint it.
I am only going to run the D cam for 6 months [for old times sake] and then will switch to a custom solid roller.
Greg
-
N/M
-
Have to say this is a good thread. One can take a lot of information away. I recently came across a thread on speedtalk that found interesting. The linked video in the thread was to a dyno test on three different engines where on each engine they tried three different heads. Idea was to see the effect of port volume change, but the heads had a lot more than just change of port volume. Valve sizes, cfm, etc... all changed too. So basically kinda says what one can expect by putting a different head on. Now some argue that the engines would have done better of optimized for some of the heads and is true, but if you look at the video you can learn a lot about how a perceived better head may not be all you think it should be or how a bigger head is not always worse.
https://www.speed-talk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=62222
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZSQ5Kd ... e=youtu.be
-
Well here goes, I hope this post is a little bit fun.
These are all on GASOLINE, D-cam, car per your specs with the fancy transmission.
This seemed like a good time for yet another “Dueling Gonkulator” for cylinder heads.
Probably not as definitive as a dyno & timeslip series, but also slightly less costly.
I Gonkulated everything from the C7AE-A “Tiny Port” iron to Blair’s Pro Ports, as best I have info on all of them. The difference between heads (133 Ponies, 1.5 sec, and 15mph) is striking, and yet, it makes you realize that comparing BBM_CNC vs TFS_CNC is really a nit-pick – other considerations (cost, reliability, availability, compatibility) are bigger factors.
Starting with TFS heads, I took a look at what converters do in your 6r80 Gal. I’m not too familiar with that transmission, pretty fancy stuff.
Et mph 60m stall
12.16 120.33 4.3 1800
12.07 120.36 4.2 2000
11.95 120.41 4.1 2400
Not a huge effect of stall, so I’d try whatever’s in there. 1st gear is so steep – steeper than the old GM Hydramatic of the 1950s, so it doesn’t really mind the cam.
So I’ll Gonkulate with 1800 stall just in case it’s that low. Here are how all the heads compare.
I’m running all these with cutouts open, because, it sounds better and how else would you run the D-Cam?
I hope your track “allows” real sound – some of the wimpier tracks don’t like open headers any more unless there’s big money on the table.
I used total Wt=3750 for iron, Wt=3700 for aluminum with driver & tools. In all cases the CR is magically set to CR=11.4 which would of course require different pistons in many cases. All these heads are using the TFS Cleveland intake with adapter. For the MR, HR and TP heads it’s not even clear those would work that way or even work on a 428, but the magic of the Gonkulator allows us to try it just to compare the heads to each other.
In each case, I’m shifting the Gonkulator 400rpm above peak power.
Basically there’s 4 batches of heads.
Within a batch, they’re very nearly the same and nearly within the +/- 3% of the Gonkulator:
1960s grocery-store iron
1960s Hi-Po iron
1990s aluminum
2010s Hi-Po aluminum
I list the heads in order of “Ponies” (average of peak TQ & peak HP), the best street/strip metric I know of:
ET MPH 60ft 60m R TQ R HP Ponies Head
13.55 106.5 2.25 5.4 45 432 62 425 429 C7AE-A
13.54 106.7 2.26 5.4 45 431 62 427 429 C8AE-H
13.39 108.3 2.25 5.3 46 446 62 442 444 C4AE-G
12.98 112.0 2.19 4.9 46 482 63 504 480 C8OE-N
12.82 113.9 2.20 4.9 46 485 64 517 500 C5AF-F MR-F ***
12.73 114.6 2.18 4.8 46 496 65 528 512 C7OE-K TP ***
12.67 115.2 2.16 4.7 46 503 64 529 516 C4AF-F HR ***
12.61 115.7 2.16 4.7 47 499 65 538 518 Ed Out-of-Box
12.55 116.4 2.15 4.6 47 506 65 545 525 Ed Stage X
12.32 118.5 2.10 4.4 47 530 65 571 550 Survival Felony
12.22 119.5 2.08 4.4 47 541 65 582 561 BBM 438 RWHP
12.22 119.6 2.09 4.4 47 542 67 592 567 Felony CNC
12.22 119.6 2.10 4.4 47 539 68 599 568 Ed Stg III
12.16 120.3 2.08 4.2 46 550 66 595 572 TFS_CNC
12.16 120.3 2.08 4.3 46 549 67 599 573 BBM_CNC
12.09 121.0 2.07 4.3 47 555 67 610 582 Blair Pro Port
*** The astute reader will notice that it would be hard to run eg TP heads without a TP intake, and even hard to run them on a 428. The exhausts are either hitting the wall or very close to it. But let’s pretend – and in doing so, we can see that the TP heads and the old base Edel heads are just about equal. The Edel heads were a good start to the new era back in 1997 when they came out. But they’re outclassed today by everything that came after them.
By the way, the aluminum heads here do indeed come in well above that 425 REAR WHEEL hp, though you still lose a lot on the way from the old 1960s gross HP to rear wheel on a typical race day.
Hope this helps on your 63 Gal project, and hope it helps everyone look forward to the Dueling 390s this fall. That will be better than Football! Well, Werby’s Wife disagrees but I think so.
-
n/m
-
Wow, thanks for taking the time to put all that together Werby! If you remove all bias and look at it objectively, comparing heads out of the box, the TFS are very hard to beat. It appears you have to spend close to another grand + on other offerings, to compete with the TFS heads. One of the few negatives was the stand pads. But if you need rockerstands anyhow, Brent working with Precision on a shorter stand, has eliminated that additional cost and the extra thread engagement is a good thing. The smaller chamber may come into play some, but otherwise an easy choice.
-
Great post! A big thank you to Blair, Brent and everyone else for their comments and experiences. It's great that we have so many choices for our FEs!
Each build can have its unique needs and characteristics. It helps to have so many options to choose from. Case in point, my 445 mill has flat top pistons and I seriously doubt I can achieve an acceptable compression ratio for pump gas with the TFS option. As such, I am willing to spend more to get a BBM alternative to my Stage X heads that gets me back into my current compression ratio range without a bunch of changes to quench and everything else.
I have personally spoken to Blair and Brent multiple times and have learned a ton from these guys. I appreciate all their time, advise, and knowledge. I also agree that flow numbers aren't the end-all-be-all. These guys provide real A/B testing data to help us select what's best for our intended goals.
I think we should all celebrate these engine builders who take time out from their very busy schedules to share their knowledge and experiences with us!
-
Werby ford
Thanks very much for taking the time to do this. It is an eye opener.
I thought that the aluminum head was basicly just a litter better then stock head with the benifit being in the weight saving's.
Guess I was wrong but then again I am not to bright.
I really like that you used average HP and Torque. I like a good even torque curve in the whole whole power band over peak HP but it is all ways nice to have a high Peak number.
One reason I decided on the 6R80 is the factory buildt in trans break as I think that will be a lot of fun and it only cost $100.00 to add to the tranny ecm.
I really don't feel so bad now for getting rid of all my old heads this year. I had never seen a comparison between the old and new heads and wasn't sure about the differences between them.
No problem with the track as it is 10 miles from any town and open headers are no problem.
I will be running 4.44 gears and a 2800 to 3000 stall TQ.
I plan on taking some more weight out of the front end with tube a arms and coilovers to make up for the weight I will be adding to the trunk with the CNG tanks.
Since this is a fun can it will not have AC or heat or any power steering but will be running a hydra boost disc breaks.
Again thanks
Greg
-
Werby, I'm sure you have explained this before somewhere else on the forum, but can you explain super quick how the gonkulator predicts power output? Do you enter strictly just flow data? Or do you enter a ton of engine combinations to give the computer data points to pull from? Just wondering how the brains of the thing work.
-
Werby, I'm sure you have explained this before somewhere else on the forum, but can you explain super quick how the gonkulator predicts power output? Do you enter strictly just flow data? Or do you enter a ton of engine combinations to give the computer data points to pull from? Just wondering how the brains of the thing work.
Well there's a LOT. Flow sure, but then areas, volumes, heights etc where known, intake planes, lifter types, rocker ratio, header & exhaust dimensions.
Chamber and piston shape relate to burn, in sometimes empirical ways. Not always related to either flow or volume. Quench, compression & CID obviously, etc. Then there's some empirical stuff, like when IIRC I Gonkulated one of Blair's 1st Engine Masters or Super Stock engines & the Gonk was low by 50 ponies or something - LOTS of little things done in the build. I doubt even an OEM computer could model all that (eg what does a windage tray or pan evac do?), let alone the budget and years of validation it would take. You'd have to convince the Government it was related to Climate Change and then they'd give you a $100,000,000 grant to study it.
And then there's the car. For example the ET_MPH above seems a little slow, but those are just a street car with cutouts. About half the timeslip is the engine, the other half is the car (& driver, especially if a stick car but even leaving with an automatic is tricky).
A lot of the above is theory, some of it empirical. And the Gonkulator has to line up with over 2000 dyno tests & IIRC almost as many timeslips or it doesnst mean much. I've been developing & using it for over 30 years. Fun and a lot cheaper to sort out combos, at least to get a starting point.
Some stuff like spacers, sometimes collector extensions etc, it's easier to just try it.
-
n/m
-
Actually, I don't see using results from multiple dynos, as a bad thing for a sim, it would tend to give a good average of what might be expected, since most people don't dyno their engines.
For a engine builder, is is important. They need to know what's going on and if something is a improvement or not, in any particular build.
-
I'm really far down the tail of the bell curve of everyone else who posts here, but I'd like to know if a 406, currently with out-of-the-box Edelbrock heads, would benefit from a different set of heads? Especially if the goal was (!!horrors!!) pump gas (87 octane, 15% ethanol), power brakes, hydraulic cam with FPA headers. I know, how did I get in the door!?
-
So if it has to line up with dyno tests and dynos vary, how does that work? Blair said that he dropped 20 hp from Bischoff's to the EMC dyno but Barry didn't drop any. Kaase tells everyone his dyno is 5% high. How does that all of that enter into the software? If you're basing combinations off of dyno results, I'll tell you that there are 3 dynos in my area and there is 60 hp difference between them on an 800 hp circle track engine.
If you're also entering empirical data in, as it relates to burn efficiency, chamber shape, piston shape, etc., how do you know what to enter, considering that isn't a line on a dyno chart, if that makes any sense? Have you handled any of these aftermarket heads yourself?
Having been present at 3 EMC events, once as an observer, twice as a helper, and with talking to many of the competitors, including several of the winners, most of them say that the EMC dynos seemed to be "conservative" compared to what they individually dynoed at home. Maybe Barry's dyno is a bit 'stingy', not saying that in a bad light either, just as a possibility. I'm not claiming any intuition, just making an observation based on my limited experience at the events.
Brent, most of us know the issues you have in comparing dyno numbers. As Blair has pointed out many times, dynos are basically just tools, and we don't race dynos. There are guys with as much horsepower as I have, that run a fair amount quicker than I do. Obviously my skills and combo are not what they could be. Track tuning, a smart fella, and combo is everything when it comes to the proof of the pudding.....the ET. Rory and Dale are good examples of that. Splitting hairs over a few horsepower gets you nowhere if you can't make full use of what you have.
-
n/m
-
Hey Brent,
As others have hinted at in their replies -
I have to use ALL the information I can get. There are PTC and ASME standards for bias and systematic vs random errors, and that all has to pile in there. That is one reason they call it the Piled Higher & Deeper degree.
YES dynos differ. They SHOULDNT differ, but they do. Because, dynos have their own internal "Sims" and like the Gonkulator, they are clearly not perfect or they'd all agree with each other. And additional doubt enters in when dyno corrections are too large, since some of the corrections are empirical and sometimes used outside their limited intended standard range.
I became convinced a while back that Rory and Dale were using Canadian Dynos, influenced by the currency exchange rate, since it seems they could run 130mph on 400hp at will. And other dynos as noted. And then there's inference and downright guesswork involved.
I appreciate your trying to understand the Gonkulator and its methods but it literally does take years and multiple degrees.
I had to take up beer just to get thru Engineering. And then whiskey to get a Masters in it. And then for that Post-Hole-Digger, I caved to the Hard Stuff - Coffee. A cup, then a pot, then it gets to where a pot of coffee only wakes you up just enough to realize how tired you are and you fall asleep again.
And I do appreciate the data and the fun that you do share - and your insight. Just as you do, I use all the information and insight I can get!
You DO sound a bit snipey sometimes, I'll just take that as a lost-in-translation over the net, no harm meant. We are all learning here!
-
Well said Werby you were within a half a tenth on my original quarter mile time when i got everything dialed in. As far as horsepower I never had it dynoed so we will never know but I would have to guess you must have been close. I think its fun what you do and I like to see if you get close.
-
Comments deleted. Censorship for some and not for others seems to be the new American way. Incomplete information is sometimes worse than no information.
-
n/m
-
n/m
-
N/M
-
n/m
-
At this point I'd ask that guys don't jump in here to get personal with either of the builders so that we can keep the thread alive and retain the good info, and not have it pissed away and force Jay to moderate.
If you have something to get off your chest, a PM would be the better channel.
I imagine the logistics would be too tough to make it feasible, but I know I would be happy to chip in with money/driving/parts to see an engine get sent around to a few different dynos so we could baseline and finally put some real data to it. I'm serious on that, I'm driving from VA to Montana in Sept, and VA to Idaho in November so practically covering the US....I'd be happy to pick up/drop off, deliver parts, etc.
I have TFS heads, several roller cams ranging from 235 to 252*, 428 block, 428 crank....can chip in whatever on a dyno mule.
-
N/M
-
n/m
-
Ther are about 4 dynos around here. One that I haven't been to in a while I know is only "calibrated" when they think it needs it. And I can guarantee that software knobs are sometimes turned to get numbers a particular customer thinks they need. I know the guys - it's a certain clique of people that revolve around that. The "come uppance" there is always the bench racing of numbers, then on the track the engine is being tinkered with, or worse, after two or three passes. I've seen that shop's work run some good numbers, and seen their stuff come completely apart on like the 5th pass. There have been previous legal actions. One dyno is run strictly by the book, which causes him occasional grief should the motor/combo have crossed the special dyno at some other time. The other two are in private hands used for their personal engine development.
Old story from a old Ford line mechanic. Sometime in the early 70s, lady bought a big Ford from a dealer in Fort Worth. Came back, complained about the fuel mileage. Several times. Early smog stuff which us older people remember as being a real pain in the ass. My friend was the senior tech and these things landed in his lap. Checked the car each time, zero issues, everything spot on correct to all specifications. Still the complaints. After about the 5th visit to the dealer, Mr. Mechanic changed the speedo gearing to read a little fast, thereby slowing Mrs. Fuel Mileage down a bit. No more complaints. Expectations were met and the customer satisfied.
I use my EA software pretty much like a guy with a dyno - it's not about the HP and torque numbers being assumed correct, it's all about what changed in the output when certain inputs are modified. Changed under the torque curve, where the peaks may happen in the RPM range, what changes I might see at flash stall RPM etc. If it says "650 HP" it really doesn't mean squat. I might be running in dry 65F weather DA 2000' in March and 105 heat index 112 DA 6800' in September, so peak power estimated and corrected to standard conditions is just a useless number except as a one more back-to-back result to observe.
-
Agreed w Chilly I too really like this thread & am learning a whole lot from it.
One thing I can combine about what Blair & Brent & others have said here, regarding the Gonkulator:
If I didn’t say it strongly enough, the MOE (Mean Observed Error) in anything the Gonkulator spits out is typically +/- 3% on an engine, or typically over 15 ponies on the table above. That translates to over 1% in ET_MPH, or over 1mph and .10 sec. And that’s in the GONKULATOR, where magically the car and (each lane of) the track are held constant.
And that 3% on the engine Gonk is just the MOE MEAN error. Sure, the Gonk is off on rare occasions by 10% - not so much on the FE but on some of the obscure Brand X stuff. Sometimes it’s just missing data or even bad data (that does happen as noted by all here!), and sometimes it’s wrong or incomplete physics, which I try to improve when I have time. I’m glad the Gonk is helpful to some, and maybe even helps enthusiasm for the 60s era – but indeed, it is important to note when all those numbers are effectively “the same”, and would likely change rank order on a different build.
So anything in that table, if it’s within say less than 15-20 ponies and 1-1.5 mph, it’s basically THE SAME as far as the Gonkulator can separate. Lacking any other info, I’d still bet on the Gonk, and often do. But there IS other info – from various credible sources, and sure we often argue with each other because we CARE about this old iron (and aluminum). So as already stated all over the thread, it’s important to consider everything.
Somebody needs to invent Internet Beer.
-
Well, this didn't turn out well. I have had remarkable assistance on this forum from Ross, Brent, Barry, Howie (who seems to have vanished), Jay (how did I forget him in my first cut) and a few others. I've learned some interesting things from some others who know the history of some aspects of the FE and its development.
The value of having guys like the ones I mentioned share their experience and their experiments (like JJ) is huge. I don't see any of them promoting them selves EXCEPT by sharing what they know and do. I will be very sad if Brent has had enough of the sniping on here and decides to withdraw, any value he gets from promoting his business is dwarfed by the effort he puts into helping people like me. I've never bought a thing from him, I got my parts from Barry, but it didn't stop any of those guys from jumping in and helping me.
In the 16th century Sir Thomas Gresham coined his famous law "Bad money drives out good". It referred to the tendency of Kings to decrease the amount of gold or sliver in the coinage, after such a devaluation all the good money would disappear. We have the same problem on the internet. Debased "information" drives out good. We wind up with contributors with meaningful content driven out.
-
Definitely agree with Yellow Truck about this being a great forum to learn. I don't understand why some guys show up with an obvious burr under their saddle. Once I figure out who those guys are I just skip over their comments and don't read them.
Blykins is one of the most honest and genuinely helpful guys I know.
-
Back to the sub section of this topic, sims.
As I said in my post, I like the Gonk and I like it because it is a way of averaging out input/output and it's connection to ET/MPH info. Just like taking a engine to multiple dyno's might do.That said, I can't recall it winning a "Guess the HP" challenge.
Regarding dyno's, one thing that hasn't been address on that, is headers. Brent uses the same dyno, with the same headers for all applications. In his case, he might be leaving (or loosing) HP on the table by not matching the headers to the engine or not using his customer's headers. With a sim, you can change out headers, in a few seconds moving the torque around, in the rpm band.
I've never heard what Blair does for headers on the dyno but, I think he used his own on the EMC dyno? Jay has many sets of headers to play with, I believe?
Ring packs are another variable, that can add as much as 22 HP, as piston mfg say. I can't add ring packs to my sim (Dyno Sim 6) so, I just add it to the end result, based on what I want the ring pack to be. BTW, my sim seems to be very accurate and I have hit at, least one of Brent's dyno sessions, off by 1 hp. With it, I can input the exact head flow and cam lobe (CC only) as well as build a lobe or verify one in it's cad program, for that. I think that is one of the keys to it's accuracy.
Regarding things getting off on the wrong track......... A lot of it is how you word your response!!! It can be worded so conflict is eminent or in a "better" way :) Some people shy away from conflict and some people don't.
-
+2 Very much appreciate the opinions and information from all the builders and experienced members. A few other members seem to have an axe to grind with Brent and love to jump in "sniping" as Yellow Truck stated very well.
-
Hey all you beautiful builders. Dig you all.
Do what you do. Say what you wanna say about the motors we love. Don’t care if you’re lookin’ for work or just giving out info.
Thank you. The info you give us is invaluable.
Always gonna be snipers. It’s part of the human condition.
Water off a ducks back baby.
-
I agree with turbohunter and yellowtruck. I would hate for one or more of the big 5 lets say to stop posting because it is a big loss for the forum and the members that need the help. Everybody has there thing whether it cylinder heads , cams , porting intake manifolds , timing covers etc. We need all this information to learn and even the big 5 learn when someone posts something. You cant know everything we are learning all the time and we need everybody. Now thats my 3 cents
-
Once again, another thread getting out of hand. I've had to delete and/or modify several messages from good members here. Knock off the personal attacks, guys. There is room here for opinions without getting personal. I don't want to have to start deleting more members for this childish BS.
And just to clear a few things up about the cams in my dyno mule, I did get that first cam from Blair for a different engine, years ago, and I mentioned that in the original thread with the dyno results. The cam I got from Brent was specifically for my dyno mule; Brent had access to previous results with Blair's cam, and also the head flow figures from my heads. Brent's cam performed significantly better up to 7000 RPM, and I didn't run any higher than that. I suspect that the cam I got from Blair would work better at higher engine speeds, but since I didn't run there I don't know. I also suspect that Blair could spec a cam that would run just as well as the cam I got from Brent.
So, can we please get back to a normal technical discussion? Thanks...
-
Amen to that!
-
See what you started, Greg! ;D
-
Remember this is an internet forum, albeit a pretty good one and I have benefited from it, thank you to all.
With that said and as a somewhat nuetral observer to this thread in it's original form I would say ALL points made were/are valid to one degree or another, just an opinion which is OK to have I think.
-
A quick "Thumbs Up" to all. There is more good info and comment on this site than anyplace else on the 'net. Let's do smiles.!!!
KS
-
Didn't mean to start trouble.
I just want to find out opinions and info on the FE engine.
I havn't buildt one of these since the 70's when parts disappeared. I have been building 351 C's and 429-460's since then.
I like this site because everyone seams to give honest opinion's on building these engines.
i still want to thank everyone for their time and effort it takes to post here.
Greg
-
Yeah, turns out you didn’t start trouble. I think a lot of the issues we have are due to the fact that communication is mostly body language, since we’re all just typing, we don’t see what we’re really saying to each other.
-
I thought that the aluminum head was basicly just a litter better then stock head with the benifit being in the weight saving's.
Guess I was wrong
Greg, Werby showed some goodness in this table, but regardless of the arguing...if you got that comment out of this thread, and others did too, this is a big win.
Differences in heads, aside from things like blowers or nitrous, are likely the most dramatic change. I like to say "fast guys focus on head work" The differences are dramatic from most stock heads, and even across multiple stock heads. A 428 CJ compared to a C8AE-H is dramatic. A C8AE-H vs and aftermarket, even more. A good head can make more power and rpm with the same cam, or make the same power with less cam, depending on what you want to do. Fun stuff when you get into all of it coming together to match end use
-
Yeah
I all ways knew that good heads made a difference but not as much as is shown in the gronk and in the dyno results in the forum.
In the late 70's and 80's I was building outlaw late model engines for our race team. SBC.
The thing is we had to rent dyno time so I would build the engine and then we would dyno the whole package at that time so I didn't know what made the most power when we did the build.
I mostly thought the heads were worth about 30 HP as an average and the aluminum was mostly for weight saving which was real important in our class.
I thought the most power was from the roller can and ultra rev kit we used.
Really wish I had a dyno.
Well I am not to old to learn something new.
Greg
-
Really, You guys just can't let it alone, sheesh. FWIW I learn way more from Brent than I ever will from you and hope he stays. In b4 the lock-down.
-
Great, I have to delete more posts :( I hate doing that. What is it about being civil that some people don't understand? There's room for more than one opinion here. FWIW, I think both Blair and Brent make a positive impact on this forum, and I value and welcome their contributions. Unfortunately, I've had to delete posts from both of them over the last few months when things start to get out of hand, but that is just competitiveness rising to the surface, and I think we should all understand that...
-
I'm really far down the tail of the bell curve of everyone else who posts here, but I'd like to know if a 406, currently with out-of-the-box Edelbrock heads, would benefit from a different set of heads? Especially if the goal was (!!horrors!!) pump gas (87 octane, 15% ethanol), power brakes, hydraulic cam with FPA headers. I know, how did I get in the door!?
Meanwhile, this post got buried...
Any opinions?
-
Maybe it's time for a FE Power Engine Run off? A FEPER!
Specify and build a single mule and provide your best head or insert your cam.
-
That’s already been done. It’s called Engine Master’s Challenge.
-
I used bbm cnc heads i will say was great to deal with bbm when i was ordering i am not in the USA but it was pain free i had them set up for roller camshaft and milled for t&d race rockers and had the rockers come with the heads i also had them flow tested here i didn't think they flowed bad some one posted a link in this section to there test mine flowed pretty much the same around 348cfm at .700 lift mine backed up at .800 lift and started flowing after that. They are a good head i payed for mine due to shipping import tax and duties. Over all I'm very happy with them
Only thing i regret was not building a cammer maybe down the line ill take the jump.
-
I'm really far down the tail of the bell curve of everyone else who posts here, but I'd like to know if a 406, currently with out-of-the-box Edelbrock heads, would benefit from a different set of heads? Especially if the goal was (!!horrors!!) pump gas (87 octane, 15% ethanol), power brakes, hydraulic cam with FPA headers. I know, how did I get in the door!?
Meanwhile, this post got buried...
Any opinions?
Yes, you’ll pick up power if going to a set of say BBMs or TFS. That said, you can get your Edelbrocks ported and a decent valve job and likely pick up as well for less $$. I did pick up 40rwhp switching from pocket ported Edelbrocks to BBMs (swapped small roller at the time but it had the same duration as the flat tappet that was in it). Car picked up 10mph in the 1/4
-
IMO I would have someone knowledgeable port the heads you have. You can get a pair of BBM heads, maybe Survival, other than that everything appears to be "out of stock", and the promise date keeps getting pushed farther out. I've been buying "used" stuff when I find it just to keep things moving along. I just tell people, " if you want it now, you will have to locate some thing used". Otherwise wait, and it could be a long wait.
-
That’s already been done. It’s called Engine Master’s Challenge.
Our very own Blair Patrick won his class with an all iron 400" 390 based engine. C4AE cylinder heads, 4.098 bore and 3.79 stroke crank. Trick Flow single plane intake. 10.5:1 CR.
596 HP @ 7100 rpm and 512.9 ft lbs @ 5500 rpm. 0.600" lift roller camshaft - single beehive springs (mild roller cam)
Fantastic results for FE iron - retaining iron 390 heads!
A 445" stroker with this combination would be near 650 HP or perhaps more.
https://www.motortrend.com/features/iron-ford-390-fe-makes-596-hp-using-stock-heads/#007-2019-engine-masters-blair-patrick
An FE built with the right combination of parts can be very competitive with other engine platforms from any manufacturer.
-
Here's a challenge............ A neutral party puts together a FE block assy and a intake & carb combo (mild or wild), with known parts. Sends it to each of the 3 or 5, top FE builders, for them to work their magic on. Dyno it at one location, with all builders present, each time.
-
Who's going to referee when the oil slinger argument breaks out in the dyno cell?
We'd have to make a list of forbidden topics just to get through the day:
- Rocker stand tins
- Valley tray omission
- Right Stuff vs TA31
- Standard vs High Volume oil pumps
- Solid roller lifters on hydraulic cam
- Lifter preload amounts
- Cork end seals vs RTV
- Seals and nails vs RTV rear main seal
- Torque wrench vs stretch gauge
- Head studs vs head bolts
- Main girdles
- Glyptal
- Intake/exhaust lobe split
- Nail head vs tulip
- Imported heads
- Imported rods
- Flat tappet break-in procedures
- Windage trays
- Ginger vs Mary-Anne
- Was it Brady or was it Belichik
Think of all the fun!!
-
I guess I should add, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED ;)
-
I guess I should add, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED ;)
No, we don’t want to allow that. It will run into who has the best platform/caliber, who reloads the best, who shoots the best, then when we leave the dyno room, we will have to go to the range. Then we’ll have to bbq a brisket. Who has the best bbq sauce, how to you cut a brisket properly? Let’s go fishing, my setup is better, my boats better, my boat has truck flows, my boats faster it has cnc heads. See where this all leads?
-
I guess I should add, NO FIREARMS ALLOWED ;)
Only Super Soakers filled with high ZDDP break-in oil ;D
-
I am going with Mary-Anne .
-
Sweetie!
-
I am going with Mary-Anne .
+1!!
-
Ginger all the way
As Jerry Jeff Walker says.. I like my women a little on the trashy side!
-
The BBM heads are a nice product for sure , I have no problems after 3 years
-
Both at once :)
-
Given the car the OP is doing and the whole nostalgia thing should get a set of Blair's cnc'd factory iron heads. Given what his emc engine was I'd say they will make the power and have a cool factor neither the bbm or tfs heads will.
-
That is an ideal I didn't think of.
Guess I will have to find out the cost.
Greg