Let's talk cylinder heads

[Mark Bliss]

Discussion and shared experience please, not debate.

Current up to date info requested. I have followed the market over time, but may be relying on old info.
I know the AFR's are popular. What is the story on the TFS heads? Comparison? Availability?

Specifically, I am soon going to be seeking to update a "hot street/strip" style build, probably hyd. roller. Don't need anything ridiculous. The AFR's look pretty good to me. Need bang for the buck for a modest build.

[My427stang]

AFR doesn't make an FE head. 

TFS is a little more expensive but very easy to make big numbers with less cam.  Edelbrock are basically stock med riser/CJ performance but lighter, there are others out there but based of Chinese casting.  25.5 years in the military, can't do it, won't give them a nod. South Korean stuff, maybe, but since we have very good American made stuff I lean that way

[blykins]

AFR doesn’t make an FE head.

Trick Flow is the absolute best bang for the buck.  Will support 700 hp out of the box with no work.  Come assembled with quality parts including CHE valve guides, PAC springs, etc.

Will work on small bore blocks.

Cast in the good ole USA.

[Mark Bliss]

My mistake. I thought I saw an AFR FE head listing somewhere.

But OK, related question-
We have often dwelled on intake to exhaust flow ratio data. "Back in the day" it was often described as a common FE weakness and we often tried various ways to crutch them up...
Some modern builders have downplayed giving it too much attention.
But even more to the point, how much effect does putting these things in a Mustang with shock towers and headers with sharp turns at the port exit...
I guess my point is obvious. I feel there was very little benefit to the port work I did back in the late 70's when I was young and still breaking the chronic "more is better" habit. These 67 GT heads are pretty, but one of many minor mistakes.
This time around I want to research and get good value and a well matched balanced combination.
So good heads. How much money wasted choking with shock tower headers? The things look good with Dyno headers, but... maybe cheaper heads. Or maybe chop those towers out. Yikes. Very unusually solid S code car.

[blykins]

Intake/exhaust flow ratio data is still very important.  Camshafts are ground around that.

With that being said, even with an "undesirable" header, the TFS is going to be way ahead of any factory LR or MR cylinder head, even with work done to them. 

[blykins]

Here's what you have to look forward to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwewni8GDeI

[Mark Bliss]

Well yeah, that's why I knew even way back then to choose a cam with more exhaust duration. And I know we still choose cam lobes based on some of this. And I know there are other benefits besides flow to a modern cylinder head design. Combustion chamber being high on the list.
But how much potential loss... 15-20? 30-50?
I know... it depends. Just spit balling thoughts.

[blykins]

If you're planning on using a 428 block, a 462-ish size engine with unported factory heads will do well to make 1 hp/ci. 

A TFS headed 462 with a Performer RPM, hydraulic roller, on pump gas, with 14" of manifold vacuum will make about 100hp more than that.

[frnkeore]

Lets not forget Blair's BBM heads.

Very bit as good, if not mostly better than the TFS heads. Maybe a couple of bucks more but, you'll need to talk to him. Could even be cheaper now TFS keeps going up:

BBM FE CYLINDER HEADS

BBM has been manufacturing and selling high quality Ford FE cylinder heads for over a decade now.  For over ten years, we have been working with Blair Patrick Enterprises for final prep of our complete head packages.  We are excited to announce our latest updated castings!   BBM and Blair Patrick Enterprises have developed new intake and exhaust ports, and updated our chamber to produce a new high quality casting, with improved flow, efficiency, and performance.  There are more port options and expanded valve spring options available. Intake valve sizes 2.100, 2.200, 2.220, and 2.250. Exhaust valve sizes 1.625, 1.665, and 1.680.  Sales of the new heads are being handled by Blair Patrick Enterprises.  Blair will work with you to be sure we provide you with the best port, valve sizing, and hardware options to suit your specific needs.  Contact Blair Patrick and let us tailor your heads for your application based on years of successful experience in the FE community.   BPE can also provide you with top end packages, camshaft and valvetrain components, rotating assemblies, or complete engines using BBM cylinder heads. Email blairpatrickfe@gmail.com to take advantage of our updated castings, coupled with  BPE’s 40+ years of FE experience to get the most out of your combination.

With the bigger heads, you can get results such as this 1.66 hp per ci, 839 hp, 504 ci killer:

https://fepower.net/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=13305.0

[blykins]

My mistake. I thought I saw an AFR FE head listing somewhere.

No problem.  AFR has a good reputation for SBF heads (and they'd no doubt make a great FE head) but they have recently started casting a lot of their heads offshore.  I know that means a lot to some and even some of the heads that are mentioned in this thread are cast offshore.  Some guys really throw fits on the forum for using offshore parts.  FWIW, Edelbrock, Pond, and Trick Flow are still cast here in the US.

[CaptCobrajet]

We work on all FE heads…….every kind of OE head, and every kind of aftermarket head.  Lots of people blow about the Trick Flow heads.  They are good heads.  I send a lot of BBM heads to people and shops that know about the newer BBM heads.  I find it odd that no one who is telling you the TFS heads are better “bang for the buck” have bought any of these BBMs.  I know this because I know where I send them.  They are a little bit more money, but the prices have remained the same, and will remain the same until I run out of castings and have to address that.  So if they cost a little more, and perform better, what is the yardstick for “bang for the buck” when the lesser expensive head does not perform as well?  It is a bit of an uninformed opinion if there is no comparative data.  One might argue that a standard Edelbrock is the best bang for the buck.  It is much less money, and also makes less power, but what is the yardstick?  How much more, incrementally, is a person willing to pay, for increased performance, incrementally?  It just depends on the individual.

 I have had or do have just about every kind of FE head there is here, or they have been at one time or another.  Just for what it’s worth, I had iron Cobra Jet heads with 2.09 valves 20 years ago that would outperform the current Trick Flow heads.  Obviously they were/are extensively worked, and expensive, but Mr. Lykins just posted that the TFS would be “way better” than any LR or MR head, even if ported. That is an incorrect statement.  Like I said, the Trick Flow heads are good.  I use quite a bit of their parts, FE and otherwise, but they are not the only show in town. The C4-G Engine Masters iron heads are not far off the Trick Flow on 400-ish cubes, and these days cost less. The usual comments about my engines are that the dyno must be wrong.  We didn’t use my dyno at Engine Masters, and those old iron heads made 600 hp there, with 10.5 CR and .575 lift, on 396 inches.  Not sure what the definition of “way better” is.  Those were not Super Stock heads.  No epoxy in the intake port, no brass in the exhaust. Less than 3K for a pair.  They are not always shelf ready either, so I generally default to the BBMs, of which we have plenty , at this time.   I am not, by any means bashing Trick Flow.  I am simply making the point that they are not alone.  I spend a lot more time working on heads than I do pecking on a keyboard.  I don’t really have time to properly market my junk, so it is often left out of these posts.  I generally don’t say too much anymore.  I don’t post everything we run in the dyno section.  I am going to post one next week.  BBM “F” version heads, 13.5 CR, Trick Flow tunnel wedge, 520 cubes.  We’ll see how that shakes out.  Thank you Frank for the honorable mention!

[Joe-JDC]

For the last 40+ years since owning a SF-600 flow bench, I have tried to get the intake to exhaust flow bias above 70% for most street and strip heads.  That is without the use of a pipe on the exhaust port.  If you can get at least 70%, then the duration of the exhaust only needs to be 4* or less more than the intake to make very good power and torque.  If the bias is less, then the exhaust duration needs to be more, 6-8-10-12* depending on how much power you are looking to make.  To get 1.4hp/ci, you don't need a lot of compression, but trying to get over 1.5/1.6hp/ci you are going to need somewhere above 12.5 to 14.1 compression ratios with the FE.  For the street most engines need less than 8.0 DCR to run on premium 93 octane.  You might be able to get away with 8.1 or 8.2  DCR with aluminum heads and fast burn combustion chambers of the more modern head designs.  The TFS FE heads are capable of 350cfm+ with minor tweaking and cost ~$2750.00 from Summit last time I checked.  That it hard to beat in today's market.  JMO, your experience may differ.  Joe-JDC

[blykins]

We work on all FE heads…….every kind of OE head, and every kind of aftermarket head.  Lots of people blow about the Trick Flow heads.  They are good heads.  I send a lot of BBM heads to people and shops that know about the newer BBM heads.  I find it odd that no one who is telling you the TFS heads are better “bang for the buck” have bought any of these BBMs.  I know this because I know where I send them.  They are a little bit more money, but the prices have remained the same, and will remain the same until I run out of castings and have to address that.  So if they cost a little more, and perform better, what is the yardstick for “bang for the buck” when the lesser expensive head does not perform as well?  It is a bit of an uninformed opinion if there is no comparative data.  One might argue that a standard Edelbrock is the best bang for the buck.  It is much less money, and also makes less power, but what is the yardstick?  How much more, incrementally, is a person willing to pay, for increased performance, incrementally?  It just depends on the individual.

 I have had or do have just about every kind of FE head there is here, or they have been at one time or another.  Just for what it’s worth, I had iron Cobra Jet heads with 2.09 valves 20 years ago that would outperform the current Trick Flow heads.  Obviously they were/are extensively worked, and expensive, but Mr. Lykins just posted that the TFS would be “way better” than any LR or MR head, even if ported. That is an incorrect statement.  Like I said, the Trick Flow heads are good.  I use quite a bit of their parts, FE and otherwise, but they are not the only show in town. The C4-G Engine Masters iron heads are not far off the Trick Flow on 400-ish cubes, and these days cost less. The usual comments about my engines are that the dyno must be wrong.  We didn’t use my dyno at Engine Masters, and those old iron heads made 600 hp there, with 10.5 CR and .575 lift, on 396 inches.  Not sure what the definition of “way better” is.  Those were not Super Stock heads.  No epoxy in the intake port, no brass in the exhaust. Less than 3K for a pair.  They are not always shelf ready either, so I generally default to the BBMs, of which we have plenty , at this time.   I am not, by any means bashing Trick Flow.  I am simply making the point that they are not alone.  I spend a lot more time working on heads than I do pecking on a keyboard.  I don’t really have time to properly market my junk, so it is often left out of these posts.  I generally don’t say too much anymore.  I don’t post everything we run in the dyno section.  I am going to post one next week.  BBM “F” version heads, 13.5 CR, Trick Flow tunnel wedge, 520 cubes.  We’ll see how that shakes out.  Thank you Frank for the honorable mention!

Mr. Patrick, I'll be transparent: you are correct that I have not bought or used any of the new heads.  However, with all the issues with the BBM blocks that I've had over the years, I have no desire to use any of the cylinder heads.  In addition, a pair of assembled hydraulic roller sprung TFS heads are $3048 a pair.  I haven't checked, but I'm quite confident that you're over that on pricing. 

Do you have dyno data between a new BBM head and a Trick Flow head? 

My point about a TFS head being way better than a LR or MR head still rings true.  Your EMC C4 cylinder head was definitely an outlier in terms of performance.  It did what it needed to do at the contest.  However, Mike Brunson's head swap dyno test on the engine that you built for him showed the TFS heads to be up about 30 hp over your C4 heads.  I would consider 30 hp "way better".  Feel free to post other comparative results if you have them, or correct me if I looked at something wrong.

As for Frank's pat on the back, Frank spends a great amount of time bashing the builders that use non-USA-made parts.  I suppose he mustered up some objectivity in promoting a cylinder head cast in South Korea.  I also find it a little humorous that the link he posted was a link to an engine with your Pro Port Edelbrock heads.

[CaptCobrajet]

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…..

[blykins]

I'll entertain your jabs, Blair.

Doug got mad at me because I recommended a Trick Flow head over a BBM head and then decided to cancel my distributorship because of that. 

Here's one thing that everyone should appreciate about me: I'm not brand loyal.  If I see an engine make 50 more horsepower using a different cylinder head, then I'm going to recommend that cylinder head.  If that makes the other guy mad, then he needs to try harder.  The BBM heads were making 500 hp on my 445's while the TFS heads were making 540-550, with smaller camshafts.  That's the nuts and bolts of it.  I'm not going to recommend a more expensive head that doesn't work as well.  If I remember correctly, that's why you decided to "revamp" the head, so that it would be more comparable to a Trick Flow head.  As for how the new heads perform, I'm good with not knowing.

You alone must have got all the good blocks, while practically every other engine builder I can think of got the rejects.  NPT holes tapped too deep, drill throughs on multiple oil passages, distributor hole not cut in the right place on the front china wall, porosity on the outside of the block connected to oil passages, bearing tangs cut wrong in the block/caps.  I know you're aware of these.  Ross had to sleeve an oil gallery just a few weeks ago on a BBM block because it was bleeding out internally.  It's always fun to find something like that, or oil gushing from a porous spot on the *outside* of the block, after the engine is assembled and ready to dyno.   I put up with all of that long enough. 

In all fairness, you have very valid points about a cylinder head not being able to feed a larger engine, cam spec requirements being different for different cylinder heads, etc.  That's why I asked if you had direct A/B comparison data.  It's very easy to make claims when you're the designer, porter, and assembler, but the proof is in the pudding.