FE Power Forums
FE Power Forums => FE Technical Forum => Topic started by: 66gtafairlane on March 03, 2025, 02:47:48 AM
-
Hi.
Does a head with small intake ports ( appr 2" x 1.3" like C7-C8AE ), 2.02 intake valves and slightly better chamber, thinking of quench, than the basic D-shaped ( C6AE-R for example), exist ?`
Those C7 or C8 heads would fit the bill for me, but thought that if they had a chamber with a bit more quench,would be better.
Thanks !
-
I will start by saying they can run pretty well with porting. However, the ONLY time I use them is if I need the low exhaust port to fit a header flange (someone already bought headers or in a 4x4 truck)
The intake with a decent valve and porting can get up to about 275 cfm at .600, but the exhaust port is pretty bad, best I have seen in 175 cfm. Unported, they leave likely 20 cfm on the intake side from a C6AE-R. I do not think the chamber is any noticeable improvement even though it is shaped differently. I attached a pic to show it overlaid with a dish piston, although with a reverse D cup you may have more pad engagement.
If I were building iron, and I had access to CJ headers, I'd run a medium riser intake on a CJ or C6AE-R, preferably ported and with an 11/32 valve combo and modern guides with the heads cut for spring cups. In the end, easy setup and no messing around with the exhaust port. However, the same setup with a TFS head would run circles around it, you can still have a good running engine.
If you had C7/C8 headers already, and didn't want new headers, the same improvements to the small ports will do OK, you just need to change the cam a little. Unported, it'd leave a lot on the table
-
Hi.
Does a head with small intake ports ( appr 2" x 1.3" like C7-C8AE ), 2.02 intake valves and slightly better chamber, thinking of quench, than the basic D-shaped ( C6AE-R for example), exist ?`
Those C7 or C8 heads would fit the bill for me, but thought that if they had a chamber with a bit more quench,would be better.
Thanks !
Check out a C0AE-D head.
-
Those FE heads that have the 2.020-2.030 intake valve only flow in the 220-230cfm range at .750". The stock camshafts were never over .480" lift in any of the hydraulic camshaft engines. The C6AE-R heads would flow in the 250s cfm. No contest as to which heads are best for performance builds. Joe-JDC
-
When I won the Engine Masters, I used a C4AE-G casting. We digitized the EMC stuff, and it will work on any of the “Low Riser” castings like the C4AE-G, C6AE-R, Cobra Jet, and 427 LR. I’m 90% sure it will work in the C0AE-D that Brent mentioned, which has the small, heart shaped chamber. I think there isn’t much difference between the Trick Flow head and my iron EMC head. I have a version of the new BBM head that we put a small exhaust valve in, that has a really nice chamber, and is better than the EMC iron and the Trick Flow. The EMC iron would cost a little less than the TFS, and the BBM would cost a little more. I guess it depends on your goals.
-
The TFS FE head will flow 360-365cfm with a simple cartridge roll finish on the ports and no additional work. NO Ford head short of the TP, HR heads will come close to that flow number and 175 cc port volume. At $2750.00 it is a great deal. Joe-JDC
-
As delivered if ordered straight from Summit (Trick Flow), those heads are no where in the ball park of 360 cfm, seriously. I see them at 310 here at .500, which is really pretty good, and then 315 at .550, and then 307 at .600 as they scream back at you. Yes, they can be fixed not to do that, but as delivered, that is what they do here. The EMC head flows 302 here at .500, and 315 at .600. Same bench, same method, smaller valve. The low lift numbers below .500 are tit for tat. I was thinking along the lines of streetable .600 lift cams when I posted what I posted. There is not much long term success on the street with .700 to .800 lift, which is where you would have to go to see 340 out of a TFS head on my bench, after fixing the short turn turbulence. That EMC iron head will not flow more than 330 here, even with the floors filled, at .800 lift. There is more high lift flow potential with the TFS or any aluminum head, just because you run out of real estate in the OEM iron casting. I was stating the facts as I have witnessed. I put those TFS heads on a 390 with two 600 carbs and similar cam to the EMC engine and it made 600 hp, whereas the EMC piece made 620 on that same dyno (BES at that time). So between flows tests on the same flow bench and dyno tests on the same dyno, I saw pretty similar performance between the TFS and the EMC iron head.
You have to consider how it will realistically be used, and spewing max flow numbers after further modification, at non streetable lifts, in an attempt to discredit my comments, is really not an accurate representation of how most people will use a street engine. The TFS people really did a pretty good job making an out of the box head with good .500-.550 flow. There are other things I don’t like about that head, but as far as mild cam streetable flow, that part is good.
I don’t disagree that the TFS head has more potential than a 60 year old iron casting. The original question was asking about iron heads. I just gave my opinion on heads as they would be received, from TFS, or from me. Not intended to spark any argument or controversy.
-
Thanks for your input. I have now sorted out the shortblock and ordered the parts, it will be a 462 ( 4.16 / 4.25) ci with a Scat cast crank, I beams and Mahle 20cc pistons with 1.0 1.0 and 2.0 mm rings.
My target is a street torque monster with 6000-6200 redline.530-560 horses. Fairlane´s engine compartment - 1 3/4" custom headers do have quite a sharp turn exiting the head.C6 and 2.75 highway gears.
Static compression ratio with 20 cc piston, 0 deck and 0.040" head gasket will be 10.6 - this more or less dictates the use of aluminum heads as this is a street motor for my Fairlane with a decent camshaft( hydraulic roller around 233 /238 @0.050", around ,0.600 lift- have not decided yet) ,dynamic compression must be kept under 8.5 with premium pump gas.I had 8.1 DCR in my previous motor, 390 with C6AE-R heads and that was on the edge of detonation. Think 8.5 with aluminum head and good modern chamber would be ok.
Initially have been thinking of those TFS heads but availability seems to be limited,therefore have also been thinking of iron Ford heads as an option. But as mentioned, placed the order with Mahle 20 cc heads which will give a true 10.6 compression.
-
Thanks for your input. I have now sorted out the shortblock and ordered the parts, it will be a 462 ( 4.16 / 4.25) ci with a Scat cast crank, I beams and Mahle 20cc pistons with 1.0 1.0 and 2.0 mm rings.
My target is a street torque monster with 6000-6200 redline.530-560 horses. Fairlane´s engine compartment - 1 3/4" custom headers do have quite a sharp turn exiting the head.C6 and 2.75 highway gears.
Static compression ratio with 20 cc piston, 0 deck and 0.040" head gasket will be 10.6 - this more or less dictates the use of aluminum heads as this is a street motor for my Fairlane with a decent camshaft( hydraulic roller around 233 /238 @0.050", around ,0.600 lift- have not decided yet) ,dynamic compression must be kept under 8.5 with premium pump gas.I had 8.1 DCR in my previous motor, 390 with C6AE-R heads and that was on the edge of detonation. Think 8.5 with aluminum head and good modern chamber would be ok.
Initially have been thinking of those TFS heads but availability seems to be limited,therefore have also been thinking of iron Ford heads as an option. But as mentioned, placed the order with Mahle 20 cc heads which will give a true 10.6 compression.
You need to bounce some combinations off of an engine builder. Cam specs can't be chosen without knowing the cylinder head.
I had 11 sets of TFS heads last week and shipped them out. Next batch will be here in 2 weeks.
-
The TFS FE head will flow 360-365cfm with a simple cartridge roll finish on the ports and no additional work. NO Ford head short of the TP, HR heads will come close to that flow number and 175 cc port volume. At $2750.00 it is a great deal. Joe-JDC
Joe, I have a set of TFS heads. Could you be more specific as what to do with that cartridge roll to get the extra 30+ cfm out of them?
Thank you
-
I have some data input here, from our flow bench. Have actually had both those heads on it. You can see at .600"-.650" lift the TFS backs up, I think anybody that has had a TFS head on a flow bench has witnessed that.
I do agree, we cleaned that turbulent area out of a TFS head and it yielded 335-340cfm. Obviously, Mr. Craine is a better porter than we are, and we didn't sink too much time into it. We worked on it just enough to convince ourselves that our MR head is flowing better than you could achieve out of a worked-over TFS casting.
(https://i.postimg.cc/j5WPsh7B/Screenshot-2025-03-06-080750.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
-
I also have some corresponding dyno data. 465" Engine with the EMC heads, and also out-of-the-box TFS heads.
Only disappointing part of the TFS heads is they hit a wall around 6200-6300
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4tFJwWk/C4-AE-G-vs-TFS-Comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)picture hosting (https://postimages.org/)
-
what size valve in the C4AE ?
That's some serious flow from a factory iron low riser
-
Here Are Some Documented Results With Trick Flow Heads.
These Charts And Graphs Are From My 428/463, Using TFS Heads. "S" Code 428 Block , A Scat Forged 4.25 Crank, Mahle Pistons, Molnar Rods, A Custom Solid Roller Cam, And Lots Of Attention From A Master Engine Machinist And Builder. Either Way You Decide To Go, Its Great That There Are Options To Help Make An FE Stronger Today Than Ever. A Big Shout Out Of Appreciation To All Those Who Make This Engine Family Their Passion, And Work Relentlessly To Continue Improving One Of Fords Greatest Engines.
-
Dyno Sheet
-
Graph, Showing No RPM Or HP "Fall Off" Above 6200 RPM. There Is More Potential To Be Had, This Is Just Where I Ran Out Of Time And Money. The Smaller Numbers/Graph Was The Same Engine, Before Teardown And Having Lifter Bore Correction And Roller Cam Bearings Installed, Which Woke It Up A Bit More Than The Already Respectable Numbers. My Only Regret With The Build, And These Heads Was That I Used The Premium (Full Roler) Harlan Sharp Rocker System With Them (Changed The Adjusters To Use Ball/Ball Pushrods, And Oil Through Them) I Didnt Want To Cut The Heads Up For The Much Better T&D Rocker System., Which Was The Only Choice For An Upgrade At The Time Of The Build. Within A Month Of My Engine Being Finished, And Dyno'd, They Came Out With The TFS Specific Rocker System For These Heads. Certainly Would Have Rather Used Them. Demand Is Definately There For Hi-Fi FE Parts. Still A Lot To Be Said For The Iron Heads, But For The Money, The TFS Heads Can't Be Beat.
-
I also have some corresponding dyno data. 465" Engine with the EMC heads, and also out-of-the-box TFS heads.
Only disappointing part of the TFS heads is they hit a wall around 6200-6300
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4tFJwWk/C4-AE-G-vs-TFS-Comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)picture hosting (https://postimages.org/)
I'm wondering what you had going on there. Maybe it was an issue with that particular pair of heads?
Here's a 449 that I did with out of the box TFS heads:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50195135738_a7e005ecb8_z.jpg)
Here's a 465 that I did with out of the box TFS heads:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33361147028_347f386085_z.jpg)
Neither had a problem with rpm, so I'm wondering maybe if your heads had a port/valve job issue???
I do know that when I do a hydraulic roller with these, the setup has to be *light* in order to get them to pull on up.
Regardless, as you have shown, the amount of off-the-shelf performance that you get for $2600 is awesome.
-
CaptainCobraJet and Mike Brunsons flow benches seem to be similar, CCJ quote on the TFS's were 310 at .500 and Mike's flowbench is 308 at .500
-
I'd say Mike's data is pretty accurate. The power curves correspond pretty well to the flow he witnessed. The iron EMC heads I sell have nice 11/32 stem valves. The contest heads did have a rather expensive set of 5/16 stem valves with some back angles that I don't sell, just in case I ever go racing again, lol. The valves size is 2.150 in the iron. Bigger than that gets pretty thin around the spark plug hole. It would respond to a 2.200 valve, but it wouldn't live long before it would leak beside the plug hole.
That back-up in the TFS head is a real thing. I have noticed over 20 years of flowing on my bench, that it is more finicky about turbulence than a Superflow. Mine seems to expose the turbulence and it affects the flow more than the Superflow benches. I am not smart enough to know why, but I know it happens. The crutch for the turbulence is most likely wider lobe separation, but it will take torque away through most of the curve, as it helps it hang on up top.
Mike's more than likely had a tighter lobe sep than Brent's examples, and the torque was there bigger and sooner, and then it ran out of breath. Overlap will aggravate the sonic problem in the TFS head. If the exhaust isn't pulling it through as hard, the turbulence is less pronounced. The downside is the loss of usable torque by going wider. Torque is king unless you plan to drive one around at 6000 rpm, so chasing a peak power number that loses you torque at lower revs isn't how I would do it. This has turned into an interesting thread. It brings to light the fact that different heads have different personalities, beyond just flow numbers, and they all won't like the same cams.
-
I also have some corresponding dyno data. 465" Engine with the EMC heads, and also out-of-the-box TFS heads.
Only disappointing part of the TFS heads is they hit a wall around 6200-6300
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4tFJwWk/C4-AE-G-vs-TFS-Comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)picture hosting (https://postimages.org/)
Mike, are willing to give some engine specs ie.compression, intake, headers ?
-
I also have some corresponding dyno data. 465" Engine with the EMC heads, and also out-of-the-box TFS heads.
Only disappointing part of the TFS heads is they hit a wall around 6200-6300
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4tFJwWk/C4-AE-G-vs-TFS-Comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)picture hosting (https://postimages.org/)
Nice ! Mike can you give more information, ie compression, cam intake etc.
-
I also have some corresponding dyno data. 465" Engine with the EMC heads, and also out-of-the-box TFS heads.
Only disappointing part of the TFS heads is they hit a wall around 6200-6300
(https://i.postimg.cc/J4tFJwWk/C4-AE-G-vs-TFS-Comparison.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)picture hosting (https://postimages.org/)
I'm wondering what you had going on there. Maybe it was an issue with that particular pair of heads?
Here's a 449 that I did with out of the box TFS heads:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50195135738_a7e005ecb8_z.jpg)
Here's a 465 that I did with out of the box TFS heads:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/33361147028_347f386085_z.jpg)
Neither had a problem with rpm, so I'm wondering maybe if your heads had a port/valve job issue???
I do know that when I do a hydraulic roller with these, the setup has to be *light* in order to get them to pull on up.
Regardless, as you have shown, the amount of off-the-shelf performance that you get for $2600 is awesome.
Truly amazing figures for FE / strokers, both OEM iron and aftermarket aluminum. Have been used to seen these kind of hp/figures/ci for those 351 W / 460 strokers which I have been building for some 30 years -makes me really happy and looking forward to my new 462 build for my 66 GTA.
-
I don't want to lump anything all together in a general statement but different heads most likely will always require different cam specs. In Mike's dyno results, it could be that the cam favored the TFS heads, or it could be that the cam favored the C4 heads. That's something you don't know unless you do a ton of camshaft testing in situations like that, then you can almost get into a perpetual rabbit hole of variable chasing which will wear you out pretty quickly.
The amount of overlap brings up a good point. Tighter lobe separations may help the bottom in certain combinations, but the LSA is not the only thing that controls the amount of overlap. The advertised duration has as much say in the overlap as the LSA does. I can have two cams: 278/278 @ seat, 240/240 @ .050", 110 LSA and 270/270 @ seat, 240/240 @ .050", 106 LSA and they will both have the exact same amount of overlap. Will those cams behave the same? No, and it's not because of the LSA number, it's because of the more/less aggressive lobe of each camshaft.
-
Mike, what were the open and closed spring pressures, same on each head?
-
Yes, you can certainly change overlap by using more or less aggressive lobes. That doesn’t exactly do the same thing as changing separation if using the same lobes. That’s why there is an infinite number of combinations and lots of cam companies. A lazy lobe will make a more linear change in area under a curve, whereas changing the position of lobes on the cam just moves where the curves happen. The engine will digest those changes in a different way. Lots of things to consider………
-
All of these examples posted are all different combos. Just looking at where peak torque happens on each one, you can conclude that Mike has the smallest cam, and Mr Woody has the biggest one. Curious how many of these engines had a dual plane manifold……..that also can affect it. If the cam isn’t big, and the engine is, it will run out of plenum past peak and taper off. The strength of the dual plane is it will have nicer power where you want to drive a street car. Happy and peppy below peak torque.
-
I recently had a 482" with the TFS heads on dyno. It acted like Mike's - ran out of breath earlier than I expected, but made good power up to that point.
Since it was my first go around with TFS stuff (I am out of castings) I was not sure "why".
I have another TFS headed engine - 465" with more cam and compression - coming up on dyno next week.
Very curious to see how it behaves.
BTW - Blair's EMC engine was a bad dude.... Iron heads have not been my thing for a long time, but he schooled a bunch of other pretty sharp folks with that deal.
-
Sorry, not the fastest response. I'm living my life 50/50 between Tulsa and Denver right now so unfortunately FE's have been on the backburner.
I should have done a more thorough job explaining the dyno data that I posted above. The engine is a 465" engine built by Blair (.040" over 428 block). Originally with Blair's EMC C4AE-G factory cast iron heads that were ported in that same fashion that his engine masters engine was. My '62 Galaxie was the intended recipient of this engine, but as things go, plans changed. The engine was sitting at my place and we needed a dyno mule so we swapped the 465" engine with TFS heads and also some other pro-port heads that we had laying around. Our intent is to also swap on our MR head after its 100% complete, but this has been a long drawn out process and hasn't happened yet.
The heads had beehive springs on them. Sorry Ross I didn't catalog the spring data well enough to be able to tell you here from my computer, I'd have to get back to the shop and put them on the spring tester. I understand your sentiment, you think it was valve float? We fooled around with springs a bit to make sure that wasn't the case. I assure you it wasn't. The discussion above between Blair and Brent makes the most sense as to why the TFS heads didn't want to make it past 6200 for us.
The 465" engine has a performer rpm intake on it, mildly modified. Intake divider cut down a bit and the plenum is blended. The cast iron heads were run with the same intake as the TFS. All conditions kept the same except heads.
The engine is around 10.5:1 compression. Normal dyno headers. Nothing crazy for the bottom end. I think the only bit of trickery was in the cam. It's a shorter lift cam and shorter duration but sure seems to have steep ramps on it. Almost like a stock class racer built it. Solid roller cam.
-
I suspected float less than bounce, and given added info of a steep lobe, thinking more maybe bounce.
That being said, just bench racing, but typically what I see from a head is flattening out, not losing it's mind like that :)
-
Ran my second engine I referenced above with out of the box TFS heads.
Although a very different combination it behaved in a similar fashion - bumped it's head right around the 600HP mark.
Thinking about JDC's comments - next time I run a set they are going to get some additional touch up work to see how they respond.
-
Hydraulic roller?
-
One of each
Solid roller on 469 with Victor
Had roller on 482 with RPM
Both pump gas
Surprisingly similar results
Two engines don't make a trend - but it's a start...
-
We have seen the same results from 2 TFS combos as well. My 465" engine, and a friends 482".
I'm uncertain what is being done differently to get them to keep pulling, I'm suspecting it's the cam design.
-
How much duration split are you guys running? My cams for TFS (and a lot of other FE heads) usually start at about a 10° split and go up from there depending on the rpm and horsepower. The exhaust port is at about a 68-69% ratio of the intake port.