Mark, since you asked me………..

My main point in my comments was/is that neither Mr. Lykins, Mr. Bullock, nor Mr. Crane, have ANY experience with the updated BBM heads.  Posting flow numbers on the old heads is 100% irrelevant to a conversation that “should” include the new head.  None of those people have any experience with the newer heads.  The heads I ran today would flow 365 cfm on your average Superflow 600.  The casting and port molds are NOT like the older BBM heads.  Posting past experience with the old head put information in your mental computer that the new BBM head is inferior.  We ran out of daylight on carb tuning this evening.  I think there is 10-15 hp left in the combo, and this engine today made 823 hp on my dyno.  You can’t do that with 300 cfm.  This engine has two 660 center squirters on it.  It made peak power from 6300 to 7000 rpm.  Bigger carbs would help it.  Fine tuning the 660s will net a little bit more, but I think 840 hp/ 720 tq is all this thing will make with 660 carbs.  The single thing that this head shares with the earlier BBM heads, is the location of the port opening at the intake flange, which is still basically a Medium Riser location.

There is more to making power than just flow numbers.  I never once said that the Trick Flow head was a bad head.  In fact, I said it is a good head.  In my experience, which happens to include Trick Flow heads, I have made thousands of dyno pulls, and thousands of passes down a racetrack, as have many people who run my stuff.  I can hit it pretty close what an FE head is capable of producing, if I flow it my way, on my bench, and give it a good visual inspection.  I really don’t need a flow bench to do FE heads anymore, but folks want “flow numbers”, and sometimes I discover a little improvement somewhere that I didn’t expect.  Sometimes I see the opposite of improvement that I didn’t expect.

To your question………I do believe that the “area under the curve” is a huge thing.  The more volume you can put in the engine, the better.  In some cases, for various reasons, an engine may not demand any more.  I have seen my own stuff go quicker in the 1/4 mile, with a smaller port, even with less flow, on occasion.  That generally doesn’t happen, but what an engine demands, and the mechanics of the port, can change what the engine ultimately wants.

I hope you are successful in your endeavor, regardless of which parts you use.  A friend of mine once said that there is more than one way to get to the same result.  100% a true statement. 

I hate to hear that on Jeff.  I pray he can bounce back.  We still do iron heads.  If you have nice castings that aren’t “used up” it is still reasonable to do some hand work.  With the cost of labor in today’s world, the cnc machine is your friend.  In my world at least, the cnc ports we have are digitized from ports that I do by hand to begin with.  It is much less expensive to let the machine copy me, than to sit and grind every port extensively.  For a little blending, straightening up around the guide boss, short turn, and a good valve job, we can still do it reasonably.  Old iron heads usually need guides, all three sides surfaced, and a few heli coils.  We do all of that also.  I have a young man that has been here learning the craft for 4+ years.  He is pretty darn good at this point, and I work with him pretty close.  Not many 21-22 year old guys are interested, but he is.  If I do a port, he can duplicate it.  Nowadays if I turn him loose, I don’t have to make too many suggestions on stuff he has done before already.  I am glad to have him.  Some day when I quit, he will already know his way around the FE head pretty good. 

Same with manifolds.  The grinder fits his hand pretty well.  I can relate to Joe’s comment on fingers and arthritis.  I am 57, but my shoulders, arms, and hands work harder than a walking man, and I am not as productive as I used to be.  Having a young and interested man here without a phone addiction is a blessing.  I have two younger guys, and one 40-ish here, and none of them have phone problems while working!  Rare nowadays…….

Mr. Lykins……I know you have never used the newer BBM castings.  That was one of the points I was making.  It is hard to back up a statement of “most bang for the buck” when you have not exposed yourself to alternatives.

I made the statement that the heads cost a little more.  BBM heads range in price from $2900 to $4100 depending on options.

I have data.  I keep it to myself generally.  Some would assume that a person who designed a head might skew the data in the favor of that particular head, in order to sell them, so I don’t do that.

There is a shop in Connecticut who did their own back to back testing and saw +53 peak power and +100 hp at 6-700 rpm after peak.  In practical use of any head in a vehicle, optimal results will be obtained by running an engine past peak as it goes through the gears, and you never want to be at peak power AT the finish line, or end of a straightaway.  Generally, the Trick Flow head makes excellent torque, and peters out and falls off fast after peak power.  Point being:  what happens after peak is very relevant.  We all put “peak” numbers in the dyno section.  A useful piece of info for an onlooker might be to include the numbers 600 rpm past peak, as well.

I don’t know all of the particulars of Brunson’s testing.  I do know that the TFS is slightly better than the less expensive CNC ported iron G heads that I sell.  When we run that program in a CJ or 427 LR casting, with a little blending, it is better than it is in the G casting.  I specifically said around 400 inches in my post.  I think Mike was testing on a bigger engine, and I think he probably used the same cam for both.  The iron head I sold Mike wil not like the same duration split or lobe separation that a Trick Flow likes.  I also don’t know if the chamber volume was the same on the two heads.  I know I don’t send out G heads at 68cc.  With all that said, I am sure the Trick Flow head is better.  Not 30 better if CR is a constant and the cam is optimized for each head.  I don’t know if Mike used the cam I sent him, or something else, but I sent him a cam to work in a particular street application, and there were driveability considerations that might not give the best peak numbers.  I also don’t know what they had for headers, or collectors.  Header design can help heads with less exhaust flow, and not have much impact on heads with better exhaust flow.  It is all about “combination”, which makes it hard to compare heads or manifolds by just swapping them on an engine with everything else a constant. I think they also tested an older version of my Street Pro Ports if I recall. Seems like the power after peak I was talking about was starting to show up near the end of a graph he posted. There have been a couple of revisions to the Pro Ports since the ones he got from me, so in that regard, the SPP info was a little bit dated.

I’m not itching to do a bunch of iron C4 heads, but they are not an “outlier”.  We digitized the heads I used, and when BBM and TFS had no castings a few years ago, we filled a gap with some neat 1964-cast Ford heads.

The higher end of the BBM options have essentially replaced the Street version Pro Ports, for most people who come to us for heads.  If a person wants a USA casting, I have them.  The 61857 Edelbrock castings are mostly used for NHRA legal heads or for relocated ports that move into a different performance level and price range, in my shop.

My question on “bang for the buck” was:  What is the yardstick for cost versus performance?  Seems to me that not everyone uses the same yardstick.

I have used HUNDREDS of BBM blocks over time, and sold many more that we did not build.  I have had issue with ONE block, and Doug replaced it.   You must have gotten all of the bad ones.  Did they become terrible before or after Doug quit selling blocks to you?

BBM heads were designed in the USA.  Cast in Korea……not China.  Last I checked, the South Koreans are not trying to do us in. The heads were never and are not a copy of anyone else’s casting or port designs.  I know of six households in the USA who buy groceries with money generated from putting some Tennessee, Alabama, and Indiana hands on BBM castings, to finish them into the heads we sell.  I am a fan of USA manufacturing.  I wish everything we used could be made here.  Maybe it gets back to that.  I would like to see it.  Meanwhile, for a number of reasons, most will use China-made cranks and rods, and valves from Argentina in just about every affordable engine that is built these days with new parts.

Everyone who reads this stuff should take everything people spew out on here with a grain of salt, and that includes myself.  Opinions differ.  Results are real.  Flow benches and dyno blah blah are only tools.  What matters is how it works in the car.  I “drive” my dyno a bunch but it has yet to leave the building. Mine has a manual load valve. I could go automatic load if I thought it gave me better information. If the dyno loads itself, you can’t feel a thing.  When one wants to run, you can feel it in the load valve.  If you have to “help it”, you can feel that also.  The strain gauge reads the load on the brake.  It knows nothing about the other side with the water valve. I use it to learn things to try to make the next one better than the last one.  Sometimes there is info staring us in the face and we don’t see it.  Sometimes we might not want to see it.  The goal should always be to improve.  I absolutely don’t know everything there is to know about everything.  No one does.  The guy who can’t learn, or won’t……will not have optimal results.  If you see trends of things over a period of time, and make adjustments that make improvements, it feels good.  I am rambling a bit now…..

-839 HP @ 7000 rpm

-703 TQ @ 4700 rpm


-504 cubes
-BBM block
-4.250 Scat forged crank
-Molnar rods
-CP Pistons  12.5 static CR
-BP Edelbrock RACE Pro Port Medium Riser heads
-Modified BBM tunnel wedge
-BP spec T&D paired shaft rockers
-.700 lift solid roller, non radical, nice reliable lobes
-Modified 660 center squirters

396 cubes
10.8:1 CR 
4.083 bore Racetec pistons
Cast 390 crank
Molnar rods
BBM "A" heads with CNC intake port
.600 lift hyd roller cam
Crower HIPPO solid roller lifters
Comp Cams rocker set up
Manton pushrods
Holley Street Dominator w/BP mods
QFT 780 vac secondary carb

This engine is similar to the 2019 EMC winner.  This one has better heads, but we used a Street Dominator manifold.  Pretty good showing for a 50 year old manifold, I thought.  Peak torque 511 at 4800 rpm.  Peak power 588 at 6900 rpm.  We used a single conical valve spring, so spring pressure is very streetable at 500 lbs open pressure.  It ran clean to 7200 during our testing, but I suspect it will rev to 7500 just fine if going through the gears in a vehicle.  It's in a 105 block with three web mains with studs.  Nice little runner with OE block, stock 3.784 stroke, and vintage Street Dominator.   The BBM heads are obviously very good.  The cam in this unit is NOT power brake friendly,  but it will draw some attention wherever it goes.  With 110 lobe separation, it sounds like a "MAN" cam, LOL.  It is a little high strung, but it should be a fun and reliable street engine.

Personal experience. I ordered a Winberg billet replacement crank for a stock stroke 440 cid FE engine that, previously, had been equipped with a very modified FT crank that was found to have multiple cracks during a tear down inspection. Winberg asked for the rod/piston balance weights stating that it would be a simple matter to balance the crank during machining. Inspection, upon receipt, revealed a shaft without a single indication that it had been balanced; no obvious contouring of counter-weights, no drilling and no added heavy metal slugs. Curious about whether it was actually balanced or not I gave the same balance info to my local race shop that I had furnished to Winberg and paid them to check and advise. The shop reported that the crank came out as close to perfectly balanced as if they had rebalanced one of their own jobs. If you are in a situation where every HP/Torq figure is critical I feel that elimination of the common aftermarket balance machining and the subsequent crankcase windage reduction would be valuable.

A properly executed “no drill” balance is the most desirable.  CAD programs used by folks like Winberg and Crower, among others, allow them to strategically design the counterweights so the heavy metal is not needed, and drilled holes are not needed.  There are people around who will “no drill” balance less expensive crankshafts, but that service costs more.  If you are looking for every bit of power, this should be on your list.

Generally speaking, the lower budget rotating assemblies are useable, but not as “spot on” as the old guy in a one man shop who still cares.

There’s a few more inches there Jim, and a little bit more cam.  Where Brady is, there is only 91 octane at the pump.  It probably needs 75/25 mix with some 110 or C12 just for insurance against detonation.  When you approach 100 hp per cylinder, the more detrimental it is if it detonates under full steam.  I’m sure a person could drive it around on 91, but I wouldn’t risk it when 25% of something better mixed with it removes the risk. 

There was 25-30 horsepower gained during the tuning process.  With the baseline tune, it made 766 hp on the second pull.  By the time we got it nice, it made 792 hp.  The extra power is a bonus, but I do it to make sure the distribution is healthy throughout all cylinders.  Long term health of the engine is definitely extended.  I like two carbs so much better than one in that regard.  You have equal length runners, and you can dial in eight jets and sixteen air bleeds to talk to eight cylinders much better.