New Trick Flow FE cylinder heads & Intake

[blykins]

Barry is always better at stating things more diplomatically.   I have neglected to say "Nice engine" and I apologize for that.  It is a nice piece and I'm sure your customer will be pleased with it. 

A lot of us have been playing with FE's long enough to have used pretty much every head/intake/displacement combination out there at least once.  I was able to predict your hp peak rpm by 100 rpm (I said 6200), when you posted your cam specs on one of the other threads.  It's because there are certain "trends" with different parts and combinations.

I would encourage you to look through the dyno results section of Jay's forum and see what the trends are for a 700 hp engine.  There are 4 right off the bat that I see....

1.  Jay's 511 combination, with 350/265 cfm Edelbrock heads, "heavily ported" Victor intake, with a 266/272 @ .050" solid roller camshaft.  It made 706 hp @ 6400 rpm with 636 lb-ft at around 5000 rpm.  11.75:1 compression.

2.  Tim Meyer's 511 combination, with ~360 cfm CNC ported BBM heads, a BBM  Tunnel Wedge, and a Bullet solid roller.  I was involved in the camshaft selection for that one, but I can't recall the specs off hand....I would imagine 260's/270's.  It made 700 hp @ 6700 and about 625 lb-ft at around 5000 rpm. 

3.  My 465 cubic inch Tunnel Port, with ~370 cfm hand ported Tunnel Port heads, a 2x4 Tunnel Port single plane intake, and a solid roller 260/270 @ .050" with .740" lift, 12:1 compression.  It made 696 hp @ 7000, with 588 lb-ft of torque.

4.  My 512 cubic inch Tunnel Port, with ~370 cfm hand ported Tunnel Port heads, a 2x4 Tunnel Port single plane intake, and a solid flat tappet 270/280 @ .050", with about .630" lift.  It made 723 hp @ 7000 with 657 lb-ft @ 4500. 

All of those engines were very specifically built, with basically all custom parts, some featuring some very specialized porting, custom camshafts, etc.  All but one was race gas oriented.

For someone to come up with a 6300 rpm peak 482 with out of the box 310 cfm heads that backup at .600" lift, along with a shelf cam, pump gas, etc., it just doesn't "jive".  Your 650 hp guess  was maybe a tad optimistic, but not really unrealistic.  700 hp is unrealistic. 

[CaptCobrajet]

You guys should keep in mind that my flowbench is not known to be the least bit "happy".  Most any head that  comes in here with a set of numbers from somewhere else is humbled a little.  I have owned this machine long enough to get pretty accurate ideas on potential.  I am surprised by those numbers with that camshaft and that compression ratio, but I'm not going to bash this feller or his effort.  That must be a really good piece throughout to turn out those results.  That inlet air can certainly effect the correction.  We made a huge box to seal off our eight-stack stuff from the room air......

[scott foxwell]

Maybe andyf is just a better engine builder.
Maybe this was just one of those combinations that all came together.
Heads that back up at 28" might work really well in a running engine. I know of a few that do.
Flow benches and dyno's shouldn't be "happy" or "stingy". If they're calibrated right, then they are what they are.
JMO

[blykins]

Maybe andyf is just a better engine builder.
Maybe this was just one of those combinations that all came together.
Heads that back up at 28" might work really well in a running engine. I know of a few that do.
Flow benches and dyno's shouldn't be "happy" or "stingy". If they're calibrated right, then they are what they are.
JMO

Both of those "maybes" could very well be.  That's why I suggested a different dyno, but usually when customers see 700 hp, they roll with it.

If you think dyno operation only consists of hanging a weight on the bar and calibrating, next time you dyno something, put the weather station right by one of the headers and see what happens.

I don't know how many times I've seen dyno guys or engine builders say, "The numbers are right, it was calibrated."  I would venture to say that 98% of "happy dyno numbers" come from the result of inlet air temp being pulled from somewhere it shouldn't.  Even something as simple as opening a man door near the dyno room can skew numbers.

By no means was it my intent to bash, so I apologize publicly if it came across like that.  This is just a very atypical result from a collection of off-the-shelf parts.

[CaptCobrajet]

It is a known fact that all flow benches and all dynos do not give the same numbers.  Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world.  "Calibrated" sounds good, but reality is that there are going to be differences.  Too many methods and variables in the processes.  Both are tools.  It is possible to draw conclusions from familiar equipment and trends over time.  Internet comparisons are somewhat pointless.  When more folks test new parts, trends emerge that allow accurate conclusions.  More info will come, and it may very well validate what andyf posted.  Time will tell.

[KMcCullah]

Well this stiches it for me. I'm weldin' veins in my Pro-Ports.....

[1968galaxie]

Very nice build indeed.

I would have thought that the FE crowd would be overjoyed that a new cylinder head offering would show so much promise and deliver?

Who would guess that a modern approach to port design (raised short turn, angled floor approach, better combustion chamber, etc) would
make more power than over sized "old school" cylinder heads?

I thought that flow quality and proper port sizing was FAR more important than raw flow numbers?
Blair has mentioned many times that most offerings for the FE had ports that are way too large.

This was a very nice build indeed - well done.
Nice too see a streetable 700 hp FE. Better head, less camshaft and CR required.

Cheers

[blykins]

Until someone who regularly builds FEs tries a set or Andy builds another FE to compare, there’s really not anything that can be said about the performance of that head.

As Blair pointed out, trends need to be made on one specific dyno, as they are meant to be incremental measuring tools and not comparators.

The only problem with that is that the majority of internet users are not dyno operators or professional engine builders.  So if they see one builder make 500 hp with a particular combo, another builder make 500 hp with a similar combo, and then another builder come in with 650 hp on a similar build, then they either think that there’s something magical about the builder or the parts that are used.

[andyf]

Nice engine.

As much as it may come off "wrong" to some folks I am going to have to agree with Brent here and say that those numbers are really, really strong for that mild a build.  It's making 1.45 horsepower per cube, somewhere around 2.3 horsepower per cfm (using Blair's flow numbers), and about 1.33 pounds of torque per cubic inch.

All of these ARE achievable numbers - but not very common for any engine that by your description is on its first round of tuning.  I rarely see that level of performance from any FE engine that just got assembled with a first effort cam selection, first go around with a set of new heads, first round of tuning on an EFI system, and non-optimized timing.  Takes me quite a bit of work to approach that level using highly developed parts I have a lot of history with.  The electric water pump is worth about a dozen horsepower in my testing.

The dyno data and videos do show some sort of anomaly that might be worth investigating.  The inlet air temperature on the dyno screen shows 48 degrees F, which is pretty close to outside air in that area that week.  Using weather data for that area, the correction factor may well have been at zero or 1% with those inputs.  However the inlet air temperature on the snapshot of the data log from the FAST system shows 61 degrees F during a pull.  That variance would give about a =/-2% variance in correction.  They might have a sensor location or calibration issue.  I assume that the data log is an early effort since it shows a 24% fuel correction and still very lean compared to your target (although the lean number is closer to what I run for best power...)

Account for the 2% and about a dozen for the water pump & you get into the 670s for power and 615ish torque at +/- 1.27/cube - - - still really strong numbers and closer to what I would expect to see from a well thought out build with very good parts.

Barry, you are correct about the 48 degree inlet air on the dyno console and the 61 degree air from the MAT. However, I think the effect is the opposite of what you suggested. The dyno correction factor is looking at the cold air being pulled into the dyno room. The temp probe is next to the inlet screen coming in from outside so that is why it is reading 48 degrees. And the correction factor is based off of the 48 degrees. The 61 degrees is the temp inside the intake manifold. That is the MAT sensor and the MAT sensor is not hooked up to the dyno so it is not correcting for 61 degree air. If we corrected for 61 degree air then the correction factor would be higher than 1% and the engine would be making more than 700 hp.

If you study the EFI sensors you'll get some clues as to why the engine made 700 hp. The MAT is in the low 60s and the MAP is close to 100 kpa. So the air inside the intake manifold is cold and dense. Basically perfect conditions.

I don't think there are any calibration errors with the dyno setup. If someone knows better then let me know and we'll fix it. Like I said before, the load cell is calibrated and the correction factor is conservative rather than aggressive. We're using outside air temp rather than hot air. We're running the engine at 180 degree temp rather than making cold water "power" runs. We have good dyno headers on this engine which is worth some power. Most FE engine builds I see have passenger car headers on them which cost some power.

[1968galaxie]

Until someone who regularly builds FEs tries a set or Andy builds another FE to compare, there’s really not anything that can be said about the performance of that head.

As Blair pointed out, trends need to be made on one specific dyno, as they are meant to be incremental measuring tools and not comparators.

The only problem with that is that the majority of internet users are not dyno operators or professional engine builders.  So if they see one builder make 500 hp with a particular combo, another builder make 500 hp with a similar combo, and then another builder come in with 650 hp on a similar build, then they either think that there’s something magical about the builder or the parts that are used.

Just because you are a professional engine builder doesn't mean you are the GOD of FE engines either.
Belittle anyone who isn't a professional engine builder - you are slamming quite a few of us on these FE forums.
I take offense to the suggestion that only professional engine builders know what works and what doesn't.
In a previous post you mention several FE builds that you were involved with that made 700+ HP. Good for you.
You are also comparing a modern FE head port layout (similar in some aspects to a custom sized pro-port head) with 50 year old tunnel ports etc...
Do you really think a new revised port will not make an difference?
You must be smarter than that.
You are the one speaking from ignorance - you slam the build, yet you have no experience with these new castings.

My 2 cents worth.

[Barry_R]

Its really not so much what the factor "is" as the apparent fact that their is something "different".

Does not mean the output data is absolutely wrong - but does merit investigation.

When I am running an xFI where I have that level of control and data access I try to use the multiple sensors as something of a cross check - I have O2 in at least on collector (try to accommodate both) on dyno and one for the FAST system, and I use two each coolant temp and inlet temp sensors.  Its not unusual to see a minor difference between the sensor sets, but a dozen degrees is a lot.  Not sure on your setups(s), but some software will capture the temp set at the beginning of a pull and not change through the duration of that run.  In one event I was in a competitor found that they could "heat soak" the air temp sensor by shutting off for a few minutes and then gaining into an immediate fire up and pull, gaining a bit of correction...

Despite best efforts, most every small shop dyno installation has some variables that have to be accommodated for.  As an example, mine has a 90 degree turn in the exhaust behind the water tower, and the pipes then travel sideways through the cell to reach an outside wall, where they have another 90 degree bend and a pair of semi-truck mufflers and +/- 15 feet of vertical tubing to exit.  Installations in more of a rural area might just poke straight out the back wall with zero restriction and no mufflers at all. 

Being in Detroit, where the outside air temps are below freezing half the year, my installation breaths "shop air" (I crack an outside door during pulls) instead of running outside air.  Breathing 15 degree temp outside air would not be realistic for any performance engine.  Even with correction factors in play I see some clear variances when testing in August versus December....doubtless the reason that high dollar OE and NASCAR installations are controlled atmospherics as well.

Does not make might right or the other guy's wrong - - they are just different and as Blair said - best for comparison on the same cell s changes are made.

[Barry_R]

1968 Galaxie

I ignored your earlier dig.  But you can freely compare the new TFS head to mine or the BBM and all three use a modern chamber and well developed port layout that could be considered modern.  Rick Alexander and Rob McQuarie were largely responsible for the as cast BBM layout.  Mine was initially developed with the help of John Marcella.  I do not know who did the TFS, but those "other guys" ain't dumb by any measure.

Considering that uninvolved third party folks have flowed all of them within ten numbers of each other - comparison to similar builds using each are fair for comparison.  This particular build stands out not by the likely or expectable single digit percentages but by nearly fifteen percent and that is always going to garner critical attention.  I do not recall an as cast (290-300 cfm) Survival headed 482 to 527 cube build that got beyond the low 600s.  If Blair or Brent or Kuntz or Kraft popped in with a 700+ HP build running similar parts I might either call them out or just make a "TQ per cube" comment - - and I have done both depending on my mood that day.

[andyf]

Barry, I don't think you understand what I'm saying. 13 degrees difference between cold air coming into the dyno room and the temp inside the intake seems very realistic to me. The dyno temp probe is measuring the outside air. It was 48 degrees that day. The MAT is measuring the air temp inside the intake. It is 61 degrees inside the engine. Seems perfectly logical and reasonable to me. In fact, it seems a little colder inside the intake than I would've guessed seeing how the engine is 180 degrees and the intake manifold is probably more than 100 degrees.

[plovett]

Sounds to me like the professional engine builders need to get their hands on a set of these Trick Flow heads, build an engine, and test it on the dyno of their choice.

More data points is more better. 

JMO,

paulie

[blykins]

Until someone who regularly builds FEs tries a set or Andy builds another FE to compare, there’s really not anything that can be said about the performance of that head.

As Blair pointed out, trends need to be made on one specific dyno, as they are meant to be incremental measuring tools and not comparators.

The only problem with that is that the majority of internet users are not dyno operators or professional engine builders.  So if they see one builder make 500 hp with a particular combo, another builder make 500 hp with a similar combo, and then another builder come in with 650 hp on a similar build, then they either think that there’s something magical about the builder or the parts that are used.

Just because you are a professional engine builder doesn't mean you are the GOD of FE engines either.
Belittle anyone who isn't a professional engine builder - you are slamming quite a few of us on these FE forums.
I take offense to the suggestion that only professional engine builders know what works and what doesn't.
In a previous post you mention several FE builds that you were involved with that made 700+ HP. Good for you.
You are also comparing a modern FE head port layout (similar in some aspects to a custom sized pro-port head) with 50 year old tunnel ports etc...
Do you really think a new revised port will not make an difference?
You must be smarter than that.
You are the one speaking from ignorance - you slam the build, yet you have no experience with these new castings.

My 2 cents worth.

Is this Perry by chance?   

To answer your question, no, I don't think a revised port will make a difference.   

To address your other point, if you'll note, I also included Jay's engine with professionally ported Edelbrock heads and an engine with CNC ported BBM heads in my 4 examples. 

Let me make this really clear:  this head has nothing at all, in any way, shape, or form, in comparison with a set of professionally ported Pro Port heads.  To be honest, it's just another 300 cfm head with modern combustion chambers.

It wasn't meant to be a dig, but engine builders do (and should) have an advantage when it comes to data and knowledge.   We see a lot of parts, a lot of combinations, and a lot of dyno time.   I know it's fun to jump on the bandwagon and believe that there are new, magical parts coming out:  but reality just doesn't play out that way.