This is the one off my industrial engine.

Casting # C7TE-K, date code 0A20

Ports are 1.15 x 1.75
Front 3.75, rear 5.75
C - D = 2.75 - 3.25

Wow those runners are skinny.
Can you re-check C & D ?
Typically D is about 1.5-2.0" deeper than C on a dual plane.
For example I just re-checked my
428PI
C=2.625
D=4.625
And then a "Z" iron 4bbl C3AE-B
C=1.625
D=3

The recent threads here (Brent's 352JJ and Cheeser's 68 Cougar 390-2v) got me hunting for dimensions of the "newer" (1966-up) iron 2bbl intakes.

http://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=10390.0;all


Since these were basically scrap iron in our day, I only have measurements on one early c3ae-a 2bbl but have nothing on the many 66-up 2bbl intakes we scrapped.

I usually record the following:
* Port height & width
* "A" and "B" as Edelbrock (and Jay in TGFEIC) describe it, from carb pad plane down to china wall front & rear.
* Volume in cc's (LOL, who would bother??? Not me!)
* I also measure "C" and "D", which I define as the distance from the carb pad down to the bottom of the plenum. Kind of a short cut to guessing volume but mainly, easy to measure.
* Pictures help too - sometimes those are around on the web but not the measurements.

I’ve found several post-1966 2bbl intakes. Most of the pictures I see have a Big T on them (like the Big S on the 4bbl "390GT and Friends" intakes.)
But I don't know if they all have the Big T or not.

Any known dimensions (ports or “A” & “B” or even volume or "C" & "D") much appreciated!

Anybody have any 2-barrel intakes out in the scrap pile they can measure?
C7TE-F pictures show a “T”
C7TE-G NHRA listed for 1968
C8TE-A NHRA listed for 1969
C9AE-B pictures again show a “T”
D3TE-A1A pics looks like low “early” version, cant tell if it has “T” or not

MPC lists only 2 service intakes for those years:
C6AZ-D 1965-66 2bbl (Muscle Parts says 1.16 x 2.75 ports. Unless it’s a HiRiser 2bbl I think they mean 1.16 x 1.75)
C9AZ-E 1967-71 2bbl (Muscle Parts says 1.16 x 1.82 ports.)
I dont know which casting numbers these "AZ" part numbers refer back to.

Muscle Parts also lists the C9AZ-E 2bbl and the C9ZZ-A 4bbl (390 IP?) as “Equal Length” intakes, along with the C6AZ-M Sidewinder. I found that an interesting comment, hadn’t noticed it in all the years I’ve seen that table.

Any help in measuring appreciated - all our 2bbl iron is long gone.

A superb writeup on a superb effort.

The YouTube is very "real" too, just sounds like real talk out in the shop.
The discussion on shortage of parts is significant and hopefully will be a memory soon as those things change.

The fact that this was done on a pump gas 10.3 compression ratio is significant too.
Well done Brent and congratulations!

So is it an 8 or an H on the build plate? That would be a 3.89 rear (no 3.90 rears)

There should be a tag on the rear with the ratio stamped too - and if there's NOT a tag, I wouldnt trust it.
Another way, you can either count revolutions or just see what RPM's you turn eg in 4th gear at 60mph.
A 3.00 gear will be about 2100rpm, a 3.89 will be more like 2800. Depends a little on tires but an easy check.

Either way, if the old cam even looks decent, given your future plans I'd just pass for now.
Any cam you get now will either be the wrong cam for the engine now, or the wrong cam for the engine later.

It's a tiny cam in that 61-65 390 for sure, 186-186 duration and .400 .400 lift, great if you want to check out the paint on the fan blades while it's idling but that's about it. If it already had headers & intake the answer would be different of course.

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 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.

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.

Quote from: WerbyFord on July 31, 2021, 08:00:40 AM

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.