First, let me say I love this forum and the FE. I learn a lot here and I try to help people, too.
I've been interested in the TFS heads, for over two years and bought mine from Brent about 6 mo's ago, based on the information I learned mostly on THIS forum.
Back ground:
I've been involved in racing for as long as I can remember. My dad worked for the company that owned the Novi, Indy car, when I was 2 yrs old (1946).
Now, Brent and I have had problems, ever since my first post on this forum so, it always seems to be up hill if I post anything. It usually went like this: Brent says I don't know my a$$ from a hole in the ground and then Ross, parrots him, in some way. After I spent $4000 with him, we talked, he offered a apology and I though things would change for the better but, doesn't look like it. If it wasn't so wrong, I'd let this pass but, what he's saying is wrong in his own words.
This is the info I gleaned before I bought these and what my response is based on:
Joe-JDC:
Re: Best actual Ford cast 4V intake found
« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2021, 07:23:40 PM »
Any off the shelf/as cast aluminum intake manifold that fits the FE, and flows 338 cfm average matches or exceeds most of the heads available out of the box for the FE. For years, the HR was the top tier FE, next TP, and then MR, CJ, and all the others,(SOHC excluded) Today, there are aluminum heads available with CNC programs that struggle to have an honest 338 cfm airflow at any reasonable valve lift. The KC Stage II heads only flow 338 cfm on my bench at .750" lift, and the TFS actually go turbulent and back up above ~.620" lift to 320ish cfm. A Pond, KC III, or BBM special CNC program that I have flowed still don't go much higher flow than 345-350 cfm without some tweaking. They claim 360, 370, or higher, but I have not personally had that flow on my machine. Jay Brown sent me a BT HR head that flowed 393 cfm IIRC, and that is the best FE head until his new head came along. So, yes, the "K" Sidewinder would be a very good intake for just about any healthy FE on the street. For performance, porting a RPM, Victor 427, TFS Track Heat, BT MR, can be opened up to flow 390 cfm and up. A 300 cfm head needs a 330 cfm intake manifold for the street, and a 310 cfm head needs 340 cfm intake manifold. A 340 cfm head for race needs a 410 cfm intake manifold. The TFS Track Heat is the only 4V intake that comes close out of the box to that number, and exceeds it with a simple cartridge roll of the port to match a MR gasket. Joe-JDC
Blair:
Re: out of the box Trick Flow heads vs. ported Edelbrocks?
« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2020, 08:20:07 AM »
The standard Edelbrock casting does not have enough material in the right places. You can make it flow more, but it will get too big in the process. The Pro Port casting, as was mentioned above, is a blank sheet of canvas, with plenty of meat to make the right shape. To surpass the TFS with a small port, a person needs the Pro Port. I have some that are small and will outflow the TFS significantly, but they do cost more.
The BBMs are better than the regular Edelbrock. I have a CNC chamber and port that will equal the TFS, which is also cnc ported. The BBM will be a bigger port, but I think for 482 and larger engines, it is better with the added volume.
The TFS flow is very good out of the box, to about .550 lift, but it has issues with turbulence after that. My flowbench is a little more sensitive than a Superflow, and it picks up the problem sooner. A pitot tube to measure velocity around the short turn shows it, as well as the sound when it gets "mad". The hump in the floor flows good when you just put a radius on the end of the port, but it needs to be flowed with about another two inches of port.......to about the valve cover rail, to really see what is going on. The TFS head is not bad, but it does not produce power to match the "standard" head flow that most people see. I am fairly sure that the development was done with just the head only, and not any more extension to simulate the "rest" of the head that is in the intake manifold. My opinion is that the hump is too abrupt, the short turn is too sharp, and the vane behind the guide is turned the wrong direction. I have fooled with the port some and some of the issues can be corrected some before the low lift numbers start to suffer. I think the head is best suited for smaller cubic inch engines with .600 or less lift. If you are going bigger and more lift, I think the BBM with some loving is better. In my shop, the next level after a ported BBM with a CNC chamber, is to go to Pro Ports.
Blair:
Re: out of the box Trick Flow heads vs. ported Edelbrocks?
« Reply #26 on: April 01, 2020, 03:52:46 PM »
You can go to the Chevy dealer and buy a GM Performance LSX CNC head and you will have the port. The only redesign was just what was required to put it in the FE head. I have flowed one of the GM heads here. It flows real good.....much better than the FE rendition, but behaves the same as the TFS FE head, and suffers from the same backup issues. When I first saw the TFS head, I knew I had seen that port before, with the exception of the exaggerated vane in the floor.
blykins:
Re: out of the box Trick Flow heads vs. ported Edelbrocks?
« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2020, 08:50:46 AM »
I've done a hand-full on the same dyno, so it allowed me to do a good comparison between other cylinder head offerings.
The largest engine I've had a set on so far is a 465 inch bracket race engine. That engine, with out of the box TFS heads and valve springs to match the cam, a solid flat tappet, and 12:1 compression, hit within 20hp (680) of a 465 inch engine with 12:1 compression, a solid roller, and ported (read smaller CSA) 380cfm Tunnel Port heads. The TP engine peaked at 7000. The TFS headed engine pulled easily to 7200, with similar durations on the camshafts. I feel that if the TFS headed engine had a solid roller, it would have been a lot closer.
The smallest engine I've had them on was a 390 and the 390 made 540 hp at 6000 rpm with a hydraulic roller and a Performer RPM on pump gas.
On a 445, the TFS heads made 20 more horsepower than a 445 with BBM heads, with 4° less duration on the camshaft. Same compression, same intake manifold, etc.
FWIW, these 445's that I'm doing with the TFS heads are making almost as much horsepower and torque as the 482's I used to do with CNC ported Pond heads.
I have seen the same turbulence on the flow bench. I generally limit the lift to .625-.630" and have a grand ole time.
If I wanted to use an Edelbrock head for a high performance engine, I'd use Blair's Pro Ports.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the extra @.200 lobe duration. You would need to run that by a cam grinder (not Comp), I'd suggest Mike Jones on ST. It may or may not need extra spring pressure, based on the ramps available. If it does need addressing, it could be dealt with with conical springs and/or titanium retainers.
There is more than one fact based opinion out there.
Edit:
I can tell this about valve springs, no one, not even most cam grinders, can tell you exactly what valve spring you need. They can only tell you, what in their opinion is a safe valve spring to use!
You can find out the minimum spring with a Spintron and there is a computer program, that if given all necessary info, regarding wts acceleration rates and rpm can give you a good shot a min spring pressure.
