BBM head info

[gregaba]

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

[blykins]

n/m

[gregaba]

For some reason I can only post 1 picture at a time so here is another.
Greg
Found out what I was doing wrong.

[BruceS]

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.

[MeanGene]

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

[blykins]

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.   

[MeanGene]

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

[My427stang]

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

[MeanGene]

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

[blykins]

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. 

[WerbyFord]

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.

[blykins]

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.   

[Joe-JDC]

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

[winr1]

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.

[Dumpling]

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?