Let's talk cylinder heads

[My427stang]

Another reason that I would have done the BBM's, is that you'll remember all the talk about the TFS backing up at above .600 lift and getting noising. JDC verified that.

I'm sure the BBM will not back up.

Shoot me a price by PM.  If unmodified and saves me a little dough, I have a 505 for my own car that I plan to work a set, we'll get you out of them. 

[Tommy-T]

Here's one thing that everyone should appreciate about me: I'm not brand loyal. 
As for how the new [BBM] heads perform, I'm good with not knowing.

Umm, surely you can see the flaw in those 2 statements? Being an engine builder, you're good with not knowing?

As far as the "proof", every major engine builder readily admits that dyno numbers are for bragging rights, and running on a dyno is for tuning and verifying that everything is okay with a build. The only "proof" is on a track. On the street, it doesn't really matter much. 500hp will kill you just as quick as 550hp. In fact, on the street, the more HP you're pushing, the faster you will get yourself into bad trouble if you don't handle it correctly, which means you'll never be using the full potential of 550hp, especially on street tires.

So for "proof", here's your chance, Brent. List up those class wins with your FE engines. Any EMC? Drag Week? SS and/or S class wins? I mean, besides your 15th place in the camshaft challenge? Don't be shy.

As for the OP, my stock stroke 427 uses untouched MR heads, has more HP than I can put down on the street (497) and runs me right at 11.50 on the strip, with a less than optimized set-up. That's right at the limit of requiring a rollbar. Pretty much any modern FE head will make a very nice hot street/strip combo right out of the box. I wouldn't overthink it too much, unless you want the numbers for bragging rights, or you don't mind making your car more "strip" than "street", to take advantage of that power. There's a big tradeoff when you do that.

This is the most relevant post in this thread.
TFS heads are good. Breathed on they're better
BBM heads are good. Even the early ones.
Patricked they're better.

Folks seem to rarely ask what do I need to run a ballpark ET. Kind of a shame.
Folks like the 600hp number. It's impressive. I like it too.

Just to put things into perspective, not science, I've run low 11's with a 454FE, very mildly worked Edelbrock heads, and a .590 lift 294 advertised duration single pattern camshaft, in a mini tubbed '67 Mustang fastback.
I'm sure with 600hp it would have been faster but I was already the fastest kid on the block with a car that could actually drive a good distance.
Big power and fancy parts are really nice. Venture to say an 11 second ET would be very scary for the majority here.

[frnkeore]

Another reason that I would have done the BBM's, is that you'll remember all the talk about the TFS backing up at above .600 lift and getting noising. JDC verified that.

I'm sure the BBM will not back up.

Shoot me a price by PM.  If unmodified and saves me a little dough, I have a 505 for my own car that I plan to work a set, we'll get you out of them.

Let me check with Blair and I’ll see what I can do.

If you think the TFS are better than the BBM’s they should be worth a bit more?

[Joe-JDC]

Here is a flow sheet of the typical TFS FE cylinder head as delivered from Summit Racing.

.100      70
.200     144.58
.300     234.31
.400     289.68
.450     311.96
.500     329.79
.550     336.92
.600     328.90
.650     325.33
.700     325.33
exhaust
.100      55.25
.200     110.49
.300     155.49
.400     194.38
.450     202.48
.500     207.34
.550     209.93
.600     212.20
.650     212.20
.700     213.82 with tube if flows 238.44 cfm

Same head with my tweaking
.100      69.25
.200     147.54
.300     215.53
.400     282.60
.450     308.40
.500     328.01
.550     345.39
.600     352.07
.650     360.98
.700     363.66 cfm
exhaust
.100     58.49
.200     108.87
.300     165.22
.400     199.24
.450     208.96
.500     215.44
.550     220.30
.600     222.57
.650     225.16 with pipe 252.70cfm

This is with the stock 2.189/2.190" intake valve and 1.6245" exhaust valves.  Still the MR gasket size, not enlarged for CJ, or  other intake manifolds.  I don't think posting higher lift numbers does anyone any benefit since most of the street/strip engines that folks around here seldom have camshafts with lift numbers above .700-.725" lifts.  Once the valve gets beyond the combustion chamber edge, the flow will go up some all the way to 1.000" or more and that is not something I will ever post.  Yes, Jay's tunnel port heads can flow 425cfm and more with careful attention to taper of port, and his big heads have been tweaked to 459-460cfm.  There is absolutely no reason to argue over flow numbers unless you flow the different heads on the same flow bench with the same operator on the same day under the same conditions.  If someone wants a certified flow sheet I will do a calibration check before starting a flow test just to make sure the machine is set up correctly and the room temperature is always the same.  I have my shop air conditioner set to 71* and have always verified no leakage before starting a test using at least a 7/16" radius for the intake port opening.  On many heads I have acrylic venturi already formed with a radius that is exact for every head and not subject to clay manipulation.  I use head bolts to position the FE head with threads into the flow bench fixture so that the head is always in the same position for every test.   Taking the variables out is paramount to valid and consistent results.  JMO, your experience may differ.  Joe-JDC   

[My427stang]

Another reason that I would have done the BBM's, is that you'll remember all the talk about the TFS backing up at above .600 lift and getting noising. JDC verified that.

I'm sure the BBM will not back up.

Shoot me a price by PM.  If unmodified and saves me a little dough, I have a 505 for my own car that I plan to work a set, we'll get you out of them.

Let me check with Blair and I’ll see what I can do.

If you think the TFS are better than the BBM’s they should be worth a bit more?

Frank, check yourself.  You won't suck me into one head versus the other. I won't judge a BBM until I flow one on my own flow bench and run it.

If you don't like those TFS, I'll put them to use.  However, remember, I buy them wholesale day in and day out. 

No secret here, you stated you would prefer BBMs, I am offering only offering a way out. Will need to know condition and what you did to them already.

[Joe-JDC]

Someone asked me privately if I had any BBM flow sheets.  I have worked on several of the earlier heads, but not anything recent due to the costs.  Anyway, here is a couple of different flow sheets of the BBM FE heads.

Early 2.080/1.600

.100      63.98      52
.200     136.09     98.3
.300     207.18     129.99
.400     234.61     149.99
.450     243.85     161.98
.500     252.79     166.84
.550     261.14     173.32
.600     267.10     178.18
.650     274.25     181.42
.700     280.22     183.69
.750     284.99     184.66 with tube 200.86

2.150/1.680 BBM stock
.100      68.5     54.43
.200     133.98     113.74
.300     193.77     150.46
.400     245.34     180.45
.450     259.95     189.52
.500     274.25     197.62
.550     287.97     200.86
.600     296.36*   201.51
.650     296.36*   202.48
.700     300.82     202.48
.750     305.28     202.48* 220.3 with tube

Another BBM 2.150/1.710
.100      68.5      56.87
.200     137.00     116.34
.300     198.23     147.86
.400     256.96     179.80
.450     276.64     191.14
.500     289.16     199.24
.550     298.59     205.72
.600     305.28     208.96
.650     311.96*   210.58
.700     311.96*   210.58
.750     316.42     210.58   230.01 with tube.   * Notice there was a stagnation in the last two heads flow.  Didn't back up, but remained the same for .100" lift.  Joe-JDC

[frnkeore]

Another reason that I would have done the BBM's, is that you'll remember all the talk about the TFS backing up at above .600 lift and getting noising. JDC verified that.

I'm sure the BBM will not back up.

Shoot me a price by PM.  If unmodified and saves me a little dough, I have a 505 for my own car that I plan to work a set, we'll get you out of them.

Let me check with Blair and I’ll see what I can do.

If you think the TFS are better than the BBM’s they should be worth a bit more?

Frank, check yourself.  You won't suck me into one head versus the other. I won't judge a BBM until I flow one on my own flow bench and run it.

If you don't like those TFS, I'll put them to use.  However, remember, I buy them wholesale day in and day out. 

No secret here, you stated you would prefer BBMs, I am offering only offering a way out. Will need to know condition and what you did to them already.

Ross, you must get a lot of Turnip trucks driving by your shop but, I never buy retail and sell wholesale 

[My427stang]

Another reason that I would have done the BBM's, is that you'll remember all the talk about the TFS backing up at above .600 lift and getting noising. JDC verified that.

I'm sure the BBM will not back up.

Shoot me a price by PM.  If unmodified and saves me a little dough, I have a 505 for my own car that I plan to work a set, we'll get you out of them.

Let me check with Blair and I’ll see what I can do.

If you think the TFS are better than the BBM’s they should be worth a bit more?

Frank, check yourself.  You won't suck me into one head versus the other. I won't judge a BBM until I flow one on my own flow bench and run it.

If you don't like those TFS, I'll put them to use.  However, remember, I buy them wholesale day in and day out. 

No secret here, you stated you would prefer BBMs, I am offering only offering a way out. Will need to know condition and what you did to them already.

Ross, you must get a lot of Turnip trucks driving by your shop but, I never buy retail and sell wholesale 

Nope, I thought you had bought heads from a dyno mule. 

I stick with what I said though, sell, they’ll move…because if you use them, you might like them

[Mark Bliss]

First, a thank you to the heavy hitter knowledge and experience that responded to my thread.
Especially Joe who consistently keeps it professional and sticks to the technical.

Re-read the first line of my OP... and consider why I may have been reluctant to even open the can of worms.
See, contrary to the status of "newbie" I am not new here. I actually participated on the old forum back before this one was even created.
I have witnessed how people behave. I quit reading this very forum over annoyance with the persistent pissing contests. The one that I would call the final straw involved individuals in this very thread. I am feeling like I may be headed in the same direction.

This "hobby" is pretty fragile. I have played long enough to see parts availability come and go. Choices were always limited from the beginning. So competing for business was also challenging.  A well known FE racer (I dont care to drop names) and I were discussing parts and I mentioned one FE specialist of the time (1970s) and the well known racer said "their stuff is a four letter word."
It was challenging then as it is now. The constant is that as a consumer, I am picky about who I deal with. Ross, while being understated, makes some good points on this.
End rant...

So back to cylinder head choices, from a shopping consumer and curious builder. Keeping in mind we aren't talking all out high rpm race stuff.
Joe's data is an interesting study.
Blair, are you asserting the BBM head might offer "more power under the curve" despite comparative flow numbers?
I am well aware that sometimes velocity Trumps raw flow numbers.

[cjshaker]

Guessing that a good deal of your rant is aimed at me, but keep a few things in mind.

Some engine builders will get caught up with peak numbers. But if an engine can't build that number below, and just as importantly, hold that number above that peak, it just won't perform as well as it should, or could. A good flat torque curve is just as important, if not more so, than any peak HP number. And if an engine won't hold power past peak, a car will fall flat on the top end when you need to be pulling several hundred RPM past peak. While mainly relatable in a racing scenario, it's certainly transferable to a street engine, especially below peak numbers.

Dynos are great for pre-installation checks, tuning and comparison, but peak numbers are only a fraction of the equation. The same goes with flow numbers, as you alluded to. Sorry if that ruffles some peoples feathers, but it's just a fact. That's the whole reasoning behind the EMC challenges....average HP and torque. Those engines are more relatable to a hot street/strip engine than any peak number bragging rights.

[Mark Bliss]

Actually Doug, you would be completely incorrect on the first part, and I completely agree on the rest.
That is in fact the knowledge and data I seek both as a customer and curious enthusiast.

And I had nor have a desire to pick on any individual. I just think perhaps it is a benefit to all to consider how we present ourselves publicly.

[blykins]

We use dyno numbers for peak numbers as well as average numbers.  We set the dyno up for each session to average between specific rpm ranges and we make changes to benefit the hp, average horsepower, torque, and average torque.   Every time I do an intake manifold swap, head swap, cam swap, I look at all of those. If the engine gets stuck in a race car, then further changes are made at the track as needed.  If the engine gets stuck in a street car, then same deal.  The dyno isn't the end-all-be-all, but it's a tremendous help and a really good head start, just like flow numbers on a flow bench can tell a pretty good tale of what's going on, but not the entire tale.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Mark is working with a 428 block, right?  Like a 428 or a 428 stroker? 

I'll be the first to admit that the Trick Flow head is not the best cylinder head for a very large displacement, high rpm, high horsepower deal.  IMO, the valve sizes are limited and the port volume is limited for something like that.  You'd never see a TFS make 800-900 hp like some of the larger heads.  In that case, I believe there are better choices out there.  But the engine at the beginning of this thread isn't any of those.

For your average 390 stroker or 428 stroker, the TFS head does really, really well.  To be straight up, I'd even be inclined to say that all of your aftermarket heads with 2.190-2.200" intake valves and 1.600-1.650" exhaust valves with a 330-340cfm port would do pretty well and that they'd all fall right in there with each other on making about the same horsepower, give or take a few.  You can only do so much with a MR port layout and valve sizes that will fit a smaller bore. 

I haven't tried a ProMaxx.  I don't want to know what they're capable of.  It's a pretty blatant copy of an Edelbrock.

I haven't tried a SpeedMaster head.  I don't want to know what they're capable of either.  That company's products aren't representations of the quality that I want my engines to have and they also blatantly copy the hard work of other companies.

You just have to make a decision on what you get for your money.   

[cjshaker]

Actually Doug, you would be completely incorrect on the first part, and I completely agree on the rest.
That is in fact the knowledge and data I seek both as a customer and curious enthusiast.

And I had nor have a desire to pick on any individual. I just think perhaps it is a benefit to all to consider how we present ourselves publicly.

My apologies for the assumption. I know sometimes I come across as being too direct, and I certainly don't intend it that way.

I like this conversation because it gets at a matter that is rarely discussed, and even less understood by most, even with a lot of engine builders (not directed at anyone). Any engine destined for the street will live 90% of its life between 1500-2500 RPM, and only occasionally exceed 6000 RPM, if even that. Then throw valvetrain durability into the mix. Typical lifts for street durability don't go over .650, give or take, so flow numbers above that are somewhat useless. Matching velocity, port volume and runner length as a balance for low to mid, and occasional upper RPM street use, is a balance, for sure. While flow numbers have their place, I think it's lower on the scale than most people would guess.

[CaptCobrajet]

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. 

[CaptCobrajet]

BBM “F” heads 848 HP / 716 TQ today.  Swapped over to some 850 Center Squirters that Drew sent up here.  Still a little left tomorrow.  I think it will make 860 tomorrow.  🙂