out of the box Trick Flow heads vs. ported Edelbrocks?

[plovett]

How would out of the box Trick Flow heads fare vs. ported Edelbrock heads?  Here are the two combos:

1) Edelbrocks with something like 2.20/1.71" valves.   No welding or filling, or moving pushrods or valves around.  Just a good hand port job, roughly medium riser size, but a bit bigger.   Possibly 320 cfm at .600" or .650".

2) Trick Flows, out of the box.

This would be going on a roughly 474 inch street/strip engine turning about 6500 rpm, high octane pump gas, around 10.5-10.8:1 compression ratio, solid flat tappet cam in the 250-260 degree range with around .600" lift, and 2" headers.  Intake would be a ported 1x4 BT flowing 370+ cfm or a ported Dove Tunnel Wedge flowing 470+ rpm.  Both intakes have roughly medium riser sized ports.

Any idea which would work better?

thanks,

paulie

[e philpott]

You should be able to surpass the TFS’s full hand ported but that is the beauty of the TFS is the out of box flow numbers can be duplicated by anybody’s  flowbench USA are legit numbers with a small port

[blykins]

You gotta look at port volume.  You can get an edelbrock to go 330 cfm, but all the ones I’ve seen have been a lot bigger than 169cc.

My vote is TFS.

[1968galaxie]

Agree 100% with Brent.
Standard Edelbrocks ported - or BBM's for that matter have quite large port sizing.
I would chose the TF heads over the Edelbrock or BBM heads.

However a pro-port developed Edelbrock is a different story.

[351crules]

like to see what some ported tfs can do

[Joe-JDC]

The "out of the box" TFS heads are CNC ported.  An Edelbrock RPM head can be ported to flow over 350 cfm with the larger intake valves, and have been for the last 25+ years.  Edelbrock stepped up when there was very few options for the Fe, and they gave us a very good product to build from.   Cost vs flow, the TFS wins hands down at the moment.  Joe-JDC

[Dumpling]

JMO, but flow isn't everything. Velocity and aim are important as well.  For racing only applications, hog away, but I believe the TFS ports would will in everyday street driving. Again, JMO.

[chilly460]

Have to consider chamber as well, my BBMs like 4* less timing than my Edelbrocks, assume similar modern chamber on the TFS.  Hard to quantify, but logically seems it has to help a good bit.  I’d also be interested to know what TFS will do ported, understanding it’s tough for many guys to take a known decent CNCd port and give the go ahead to grind on it

[blykins]

All of my TFS headed engines have ran between 30 and 34° total timing.  Very efficient chamber.  The 30° total was with 12:1 compression.  The others were pump gas.

[My427stang]

I am a Trick Flow fan, very much so, but I am also a money fan LOL So, I would do some math 

Cost of Trick Flow heads + machine work to use the (rocker stands/shims) + springs (if required) to meet your cam

Compare that to two different math problems
1 - Cost to prep your heads to meet peak flow with fresh seals/valve job etc (my bet is to compete, you are probably pretty close)
2 - Money you'd get from selling them if willing to do so

I think that if you can get your flow numbers up, which would require smaller stem valve, porting, etc, you'd be hard pressed to say the change in timing from 38 or so to 32-34 means anything.  However, I think the money in your pocket is going to drive it, assuming you are willing to sell off a good set of Edels

[1968galaxie]

If I was putting together another FE, the Trick Flow head would be at the top of my shopping list.
As said by others, the bang for the buck is huge - as well as a very well designed cylinder hear (taking into account the milling required for rocker geometry).

Brent and others have put together very impressive FE builds using the TFS offering.
I do like the TFS intake as well. I believe it was used on the engine masters winning FE entry.

[CaptCobrajet]

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.

[blykins]

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.

[plovett]

I am a Trick Flow fan, very much so, but I am also a money fan LOL So, I would do some math 

Cost of Trick Flow heads + machine work to use the (rocker stands/shims) + springs (if required) to meet your cam

Compare that to two different math problems
1 - Cost to prep your heads to meet peak flow with fresh seals/valve job etc (my bet is to compete, you are probably pretty close)
2 - Money you'd get from selling them if willing to do so

I think that if you can get your flow numbers up, which would require smaller stem valve, porting, etc, you'd be hard pressed to say the change in timing from 38 or so to 32-34 means anything.  However, I think the money in your pocket is going to drive it, assuming you are willing to sell off a good set of Edels

You hit the nail on the head.  I am trying to decide whether to keep my ported Edelbrocks and upgrade them or get some Trick Flows and sell my Edelbrocks. 

My Edelbrocks are ported and flow 293/206" cfm at .600", and 302 cfm on the intake at .650", with 2.09"/1.65" valves.  I would likely buy11/32" stem 2.20"/1.71" valves and just have the throats opened up a bit to match.  I am not sure how much I would gain, but some.  I imagine they will flow less than the untouched Trick Flows and my ports will be larger.

paulie

[plovett]

You gotta look at port volume.  You can get an edelbrock to go 330 cfm, but all the ones I’ve seen have been a lot bigger than 169cc.

My vote is TFS.

What would you guess I would lose, in terms of peak power, with my ported Edelbrocks compared to the TF's, at approximately the 550 hp level?

thanks,

paulie

[blykins]

You gotta look at port volume.  You can get an edelbrock to go 330 cfm, but all the ones I’ve seen have been a lot bigger than 169cc.

My vote is TFS.

What would you guess I would lose, in terms of peak power, with my ported Edelbrocks compared to the TF's, at approximately the 550 hp level?

thanks,

paulie

My guess based on what I’ve seen with the TFS heads versus some ported factory heads, box Survival heads, and box BBM heads, I’d say 20-30 hp.

[My427stang]

Paulie, go check out my 2 CJs on the Dyno forum, one was a 300+ cfm  CJ port the other a stock TFS. Other than that engines were pretty close with the more powerful one being slightly milder

[plovett]

Paulie, go check out my 2 CJs on the Dyno forum, one was a 300+ cfm  CJ port the other a stock TFS. Other than that engines were pretty close with the more powerful one being slightly milder

Those are nice builds.   The TFS ports seem to work very well there.  …..I wonder how the TFS heads match up dimensionally to my intakes?   Both port size and location?  Maybe I'll get out in the garage and look at them.

paulie

[blykins]

[plovett]

Thanks Brent!

I use the 202A's, but I have to trim them to fit my current heads.  I think my intake manifold ports are bigger too, but I will have to look.

paulie

[My427stang]

Paulie, we used a 202A for the TFS and port matched the PI

[plovett]

Paulie, we used a 202A for the TFS and port matched the PI

I am sure the ports on my Edelbrock heads are bigger than the TFS port openings.  So I am wondering if the ports on my intakes are also bigger than the TFS ports.  That would create a mismatch.  I know such combinations are sometimes run successfully.  Bad idea?  I need to go dig out my intakes.

paulie

[My427stang]

Paulie, a couple of comments on this round

1 - Generally guys don't hog a TW out nowadays, however, who knows what guys did to "improve it" back when, it's worth checking to see if either hasn't been opened past medium riser.  I will say though, a step on the bottom isn't a big deal, and honestly even a small one could live fine at that level of HP, but you could likely pretty easily knock down the top and side edges of the TFS head if required.  I'd be less worried about making the port size work that dealing with a sloppy, really hogged out TW.

2 - You are planning a lot of cubes and a lot of cam, 550 hp shouldn't be difficult, and with the Trick Flows, my gut says, with proper parts choice, you'll easily beat that (likely significantly)

3 - Not sure when it will get on the pump given the CV-19 stop movement for us military guys, but I will be putting a TW, 295 cfm ported 457, with much less cam than you discussed (low 240s, but more lift), but should show you what the TW will do with a head about like yours now.  I hope you'll be surprised

4 - I don't think just a stem diameter change and a little bowl/transition work is going to be dramatic to your Edelbrocks, unless the current valve job is crappy and the next one is good.  It will help, but it's not going to gain you big numbers in my opinion. 

5 - Don't forget, if you buy TFS for a solid cam, you will either have to buy bare and buy all components, or buy with springs and change them out, the supplied springs may work with a +.100 Ti retainer and some lock/shim games, but you'd likely start fighting with clearance issues and of course the setup time costs money too.  Certainly just a WAG looking at the spring pressures, and springs aren't that expensive, but it does add to the cost

One thing I would consider is if selling both TWs and the Edels could pay for an unmolested MR dual plane and a portion of the Trick Flows?  Given your effort to tame it down a little while making big inch power, might be a smart move if the numbers work

In the end though, a healthy 474 inch engine, shouldn't be too hard to hit 550 hp.  We just jammed my truck motor at 13 less cubes, 9.75:1, and a Comp 280/230 HFT and 277 cfm truck heads at 490 hp with zero tuning.  Add cubes, compression, cam and airflow....you know the drill

[cammerfe]

Does anybody know who did the (re)-design work on the Trick Flows? A long time ago I heard about a truly home garage operation in Ohio that was working on a new head for the 385-series engine. I tracked them down and, since I was writing for Super Ford Magazine at the time, drove down there from Livonia, Michigan and got the very first set they had finished. The seats were installed but the guides were in a baggie when I got them.

I took them home and had the head porter at Carl Holbrook's shop (some of you may well have heard of 'Birdy'), do a clean-up on one head. I found out that the next two sets went to FoMoCo read ('EEE') and from there to a "Well-known Detroit area performance shop", who went completely through them.

The result of their analysis was given to me with the proviso that I not name them, since the information
was proprietary, and the property of FoMoCo. I wrote the results up for a second article---the first one was primarily that the things actually existed and that orders were being taken, along with a slew of pictures pointing out the changes that had been made beyond the SCJ castings.

All the work, up to that point, had been done by a pair of brothers named Smith---as I said at the time in Super Ford, "not the cough drop ones and neither of them had a beard". They ultimately sold out to Summit but the changes were very well thought out. I wouldn't be astounded to find out that they had had some sort of input into the FE castings, as well.

[blykins]

I know Lawes Mayfield did a lot of Trick Flow R&D for BBF/SBF stuff a while back.  He's in Owensboro, KY. 

[pbf777]

A long time ago I heard about a truly home garage operation in Ohio that was working on a new head for the 385-series engine. I tracked them down...........

All the work, up to that point, had been done by a pair of brothers named Smith---..............They ultimately sold out to Summit

      Perhaps that would be Rick & Mike Smith, employees at that time of the Wilbert Manufacturing Co.

     And, all I can say is: "you can't believe everything you hear"!       

     Scott.

[CaptCobrajet]

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.

[cammerfe]

A long time ago I heard about a truly home garage operation in Ohio that was working on a new head for the 385-series engine. I tracked them down...........

All the work, up to that point, had been done by a pair of brothers named Smith---..............They ultimately sold out to Summit

      Perhaps that would be Rick & Mike Smith, employees at that time of the Wilbert Manufacturing Co.

     And, all I can say is: "you can't believe everything you hear"!       

     Scott.

The story I was given was that one of them was a mold-maker by profession, and he got laid off and put his extra time into creating the head re-design. At the time, the best heads around were being reworked in the same general way as the Cleveland head, with the exhaust port plate inserted after a substantial cut was made across the head to make way for it. The exhaust port was raised considerably thereby, so that it matched better with the intake flow. I saw the machinery in the garage when I picked up the first pair of heads, and further discussion with the "Well-known Detroit Race Shop" made it clear that the heads they explored had come from the same source.

All I know was that there was a third guy involved in some fashion and there was a legal wangle within a couple of months after I made the trip, within the group. The end of things, according to the Lawyer who called me, was that the third guy was no longer part of the group. I don't know what happened after that.

KS

[afret]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

[plovett]

Well, I eyeballed my ports compared to Mr. Gasket 202A's.  The cylinder head openings are bigger on my Edelbrocks, as I remembered.  I had to cut the 202A's last time I put them on.   The ports on the intake manifolds I am thinking of using are bigger too, but just barely.  They would almost work if the gasket was aligned perfectly and didn't squish any.  In practice the intake manifolds will need the gaskets trimmed, as well.

It is not a lot of difference.  I could have the Trick Flows massaged just a bit on the roof and sides and the alignment would likely be fine with my intake manifolds.  Or I could run the Trick Flows with the slight mismatch.  Or I could get a new intake manifold to fit the Trick Flows perfectly.   I am leaning towards keeping the Edelbrocks.   

[plovett]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

Yes,  I think I will keep my Edelbricks.    I was running 11.40's on sticky street tires (but still spinning) with my 428.  If I could run high 10's with the new bigger engine, with less rpm and gear, I'd be super happy.  I won't likely put a cage in it, as it is a street car first.

We'll see how much bigger valves, opened throat, and thinner stems will gain.  I am hoping for 10, 15, 20 cfm?

paulie

By the way, I found the flow sheet for my 1x4 BT intake manifold.  The average cfm per runner was over 400 cfm.  The Tunnel Wedge was 474+ cfm.   Thanks, Joe! 

paulie

[blykins]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

Yes,  I think I will keep my Edelbricks.    I was running 11.40's on sticky street tires (but still spinning) with my 428.  If I could run high 10's with the new bigger engine, with less rpm and gear, I'd be super happy.  I won't likely put a cage in it, as it is a street car first.

We'll see how much bigger valves, opened throat, and thinner stems will gain.  I am hoping for 10, 15, 20 cfm?

paulie

By the way, I found the flow sheet for my 1x4 BT intake manifold.  The average cfm per runner was over 400 cfm.  The Tunnel Wedge was 474+ cfm.   Thanks, Joe! 

paulie

Tall order.  You're needing to gain roughly 100 hp with less rpm and you're hindering the car with less gear as well.

[plovett]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

Yes,  I think I will keep my Edelbricks.    I was running 11.40's on sticky street tires (but still spinning) with my 428.  If I could run high 10's with the new bigger engine, with less rpm and gear, I'd be super happy.  I won't likely put a cage in it, as it is a street car first.

We'll see how much bigger valves, opened throat, and thinner stems will gain.  I am hoping for 10, 15, 20 cfm?

paulie

By the way, I found the flow sheet for my 1x4 BT intake manifold.  The average cfm per runner was over 400 cfm.  The Tunnel Wedge was 474+ cfm.   Thanks, Joe! 

paulie

Tall order.  You're needing to gain roughly 100 hp with less rpm and you're hindering the car with less gear as well.

Could be. It was running in the 122-125 mph range before.   I plan to add 40+ cubes, increase the airflow a tad, but decrease the gearing, rpm, and stall speed. From 4.11 to 3.64, and rpm from 6900 to 6500 or so, and stall from 3600 to 3000 or so.  Regarding the gearing, you obviously have not street raced.  We generally try to kill low rpm power to get it to hook, on street tires, on street surfaces.  That is unless it is a "small" small block or less than 8 cylinders.

paulie

[blykins]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

Yes,  I think I will keep my Edelbricks.    I was running 11.40's on sticky street tires (but still spinning) with my 428.  If I could run high 10's with the new bigger engine, with less rpm and gear, I'd be super happy.  I won't likely put a cage in it, as it is a street car first.

We'll see how much bigger valves, opened throat, and thinner stems will gain.  I am hoping for 10, 15, 20 cfm?

paulie

By the way, I found the flow sheet for my 1x4 BT intake manifold.  The average cfm per runner was over 400 cfm.  The Tunnel Wedge was 474+ cfm.   Thanks, Joe! 

paulie

Tall order.  You're needing to gain roughly 100 hp with less rpm and you're hindering the car with less gear as well.

Could be. It was running in the 122-125 mph range before.   I plan to add 40+ cubes, increase the airflow a tad, but decrease the gearing, rpm, and stall speed. From 4.11 to 3.64, and rpm from 6900 to 6500 or so, and stall from 3600 to 3000 or so.  Regarding the gearing, you obviously have not street raced.  We generally try to kill low rpm power to get it to hook, on street tires, on street surfaces.  That is unless it is a "small" small block or less than 8 cylinders.

paulie

I obviously have not street raced?   LOL that's funny....  Everything I have street raced has been a V8 and had 4.10 gears or deeper.  I had no trouble with street tires or drag radials.  Cars have gas pedals.  They're easy to use. 

Unfortunately, I don't think you're gonna end up too far past where you are right now. 

[My427stang]

Paulie,
I think you have competing goals. Running even high 10s with a 3.64 will take some serious torque. Nitrous or blower in my opinion, especially if you are going to try to come out soft and catch up on the big end. I would look close at the desired end use and if it is a street racer, dump the tall gear

[plovett]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

Yes,  I think I will keep my Edelbricks.    I was running 11.40's on sticky street tires (but still spinning) with my 428.  If I could run high 10's with the new bigger engine, with less rpm and gear, I'd be super happy.  I won't likely put a cage in it, as it is a street car first.

We'll see how much bigger valves, opened throat, and thinner stems will gain.  I am hoping for 10, 15, 20 cfm?

paulie

By the way, I found the flow sheet for my 1x4 BT intake manifold.  The average cfm per runner was over 400 cfm.  The Tunnel Wedge was 474+ cfm.   Thanks, Joe! 

paulie

Tall order.  You're needing to gain roughly 100 hp with less rpm and you're hindering the car with less gear as well.

Could be. It was running in the 122-125 mph range before.   I plan to add 40+ cubes, increase the airflow a tad, but decrease the gearing, rpm, and stall speed. From 4.11 to 3.64, and rpm from 6900 to 6500 or so, and stall from 3600 to 3000 or so.  Regarding the gearing, you obviously have not street raced.  We generally try to kill low rpm power to get it to hook, on street tires, on street surfaces.  That is unless it is a "small" small block or less than 8 cylinders.

paulie

I obviously have not street raced?   LOL that's funny....  Everything I have street raced has been a V8 and had 4.10 gears or deeper.  I had no trouble with street tires or drag radials.  Cars have gas pedals.  They're easy to use. 

Unfortunately, I don't think you're gonna end up too far past where you are right now.

No worries.  I am mainly trying to get the same or better performance with less rpm and less gear.  Time will tell. You keep on street racing. 

[blykins]

If you already have the Edelbrocks, and are thinking of buying the other heads, you might consider saving your money and just use the Eds in a street/strip car like your Cougar.  You have to have a full cage to go quicker than 10 seconds in the quarter which is kind of a pain.   You should be able to have a streetable car in the low 10s with the Eds.  I guess it's another story if you want to go quicker.

My street car with POS Ed heads that a lot of people seem to hate should run 10.4-10.5 seconds in good air at a sea level track from what it ran at Spokane on it's one time to the track.  That's with the FPA corks and mufflers.  REF headers would probably knock a tenth or two off that.  They wouldn't fit with the kicked out oil pan so gave them away.

Yes,  I think I will keep my Edelbricks.    I was running 11.40's on sticky street tires (but still spinning) with my 428.  If I could run high 10's with the new bigger engine, with less rpm and gear, I'd be super happy.  I won't likely put a cage in it, as it is a street car first.

We'll see how much bigger valves, opened throat, and thinner stems will gain.  I am hoping for 10, 15, 20 cfm?

paulie

By the way, I found the flow sheet for my 1x4 BT intake manifold.  The average cfm per runner was over 400 cfm.  The Tunnel Wedge was 474+ cfm.   Thanks, Joe! 

paulie

Tall order.  You're needing to gain roughly 100 hp with less rpm and you're hindering the car with less gear as well.

Could be. It was running in the 122-125 mph range before.   I plan to add 40+ cubes, increase the airflow a tad, but decrease the gearing, rpm, and stall speed. From 4.11 to 3.64, and rpm from 6900 to 6500 or so, and stall from 3600 to 3000 or so.  Regarding the gearing, you obviously have not street raced.  We generally try to kill low rpm power to get it to hook, on street tires, on street surfaces.  That is unless it is a "small" small block or less than 8 cylinders.

paulie

I obviously have not street raced?   LOL that's funny....  Everything I have street raced has been a V8 and had 4.10 gears or deeper.  I had no trouble with street tires or drag radials.  Cars have gas pedals.  They're easy to use. 

Unfortunately, I don't think you're gonna end up too far past where you are right now.

No worries.  I am mainly trying to get the same or better performance with less rpm and less gear.  Time will tell. You keep on street racing. 

Good luck!

[plovett]

Paulie,
I think you have competing goals. Running even high 10s with a 3.64 will take some serious torque. Nitrous or blower in my opinion, especially if you are going to try to come out soft and catch up on the big end. I would look close at the desired end use and if it is a street racer, dump the tall gear

If I had a 4.11 gear with 27" tires I would run out of rpm with a 3 speed with my new combination. I am almost at that point with my little 428. I HAVE to lower (numerically) the gearing.  Just a question of how much. 

Yes, of course I have competing goals.  That is what makes it interesting.  I have never had a combination with too little gear, just too much.   Remember my experiment with the low ratio gear set?  It was fun, but no bueno for actually getting good ET's.  And yes, I can work the throttle, but physics is physics.  Will I gain another 4-5 tenths?  Maybe, maybe not.  But at least it's real.   

paulie

[My427stang]

Well Paulie, always good to try something,and it’s your car and bank account. Just remember you are trying to make up 11.4% of torque multiplication from the gear change alone, 60 ft lbs or so, and even more when you take out converter, just  to break even

With a cross bolted 427 based stroker with a ported TW, I would be letting it eat if you are running out of rpm with the current motor, that is if being real is street racing

[plovett]

Well Paulie, always good to try something,and it’s your car and bank account. Just remember you are trying to make up 11.4% of torque multiplication from the gear change alone, 60 ft lbs or so, and even more when you take out converter, just  to break even

With a cross bolted 427 based stroker with a ported TW, I would be letting it eat if you are running out of rpm with the current motor, that is if being real is street racing

I am not trying to make up for 11.4% of torque multiplication from the gear change alone.  Where do you get that idea? 

[My427stang]

Paulie, I am not fighting with you but you seem to have an edge on today. Of course you are, the gear change does it...the gear change gives up 11% of torque multiplication, pure ratio comparison, and a converter pre-stall provides even more and loses more If tighter.  Ignore the converter for the percentage discussion, when you swap the gears for the trap rpm, you trade off that 11%

That has to come back from somewhere, the gears are the COST not what you are trying to do

[afret]

With a trap speed of 125, if you optimize it for the track, your car should be deep into the 10s.  I don't street race but I would think you would lose a lot of time from a non prepped surface especially with drag radials. 

After the trip to the track, I put in a new center section going from 4.30s to 3.89s to stay off the limiter and would guess it won't hurt the time much.  A good converter makes a huge difference and is worth a lot time wise though if your car can hook and make use of it. 

[blykins]

Paulie,
I think you have competing goals. Running even high 10s with a 3.64 will take some serious torque. Nitrous or blower in my opinion, especially if you are going to try to come out soft and catch up on the big end. I would look close at the desired end use and if it is a street racer, dump the tall gear

If I had a 4.11 gear with 27" tires I would run out of rpm with a 3 speed with my new combination. I am almost at that point with my little 428. I HAVE to lower (numerically) the gearing.  Just a question of how much. 

Yes, of course I have competing goals.  That is what makes it interesting.  I have never had a combination with too little gear, just too much.   Remember my experiment with the low ratio gear set?  It was fun, but no bueno for actually getting good ET's.  And yes, I can work the throttle, but physics is physics.  Will I gain another 4-5 tenths?  Maybe, maybe not.  But at least it's real.   

paulie

You are in the same boat as everyone else who is in this predicament.   You either add an overdrive for another gear for cruising with a deep gear and big cam, or you pull cam out to get the peak down where it's fitting for a taller gear and learn how to drive it.

You're about to spend a lot of money for an experiment that most of us already know what the results will be.   There's a reason why this is the road less traveled.....

Putting a ported TW on top really just adds icing to the proverbial cake.  No bottom end and the heads/cam won't give you enough to have any top end.

[plovett]

With a trap speed of 125, if you optimize it for the track, your car should be deep into the 10s.  I don't street race but I would think you would lose a lot of time from a non prepped surface especially with drag radials. 

After the trip to the track, I put in a new center section going from 4.30s to 3.89s to stay off the limiter and would guess it won't hurt the time much.  A good converter makes a huge difference and is worth a lot time wise though if your car can hook and make use of it.

I am planning on going from 4.11 to 3.64:1, but I also have two sets of wheels.  My plan is to use a 26" tall tire for "race" and in town, and a 28-1/4 inch tall tire for highway cruising.  I currently have a 27" tall tire so the effect of the 26" tire will be something like me changing to 3.78:1 ratio.

I thought about using a taller tire with my 4.11 gears, but I don't think that will be enough.   I think I would run out of rpm by the end of the quarter mile, at least rpm that I am comfortable with.

I like to have a few "extra" mph on the top end so I am not on the rev limiter

Hopefully the shorter tire, combined with the displacement increase( if my 427 block works out okay) and some more airflow from improved cylinder heads and intake will get me to the same point with less rpm.  If I can gain from where I was then so much the better.

thanks,

paulie

[afret]

Long ago we used to drive a 390 Torino with 3.91 gears, 10 inch converter, and 27" tall tires all over the place.  Went on long highway drives all over the western states with no problem. (Other than gas mileage. LOL) 3.89/3.91 gears are a pretty good compromise especially with 28" tires for the highway.

[Tommy-T]

With a trap speed of 125, if you optimize it for the track, your car should be deep into the 10s.  I don't street race but I would think you would lose a lot of time from a non prepped surface especially with drag radials. 

After the trip to the track, I put in a new center section going from 4.30s to 3.89s to stay off the limiter and would guess it won't hurt the time much.  A good converter makes a huge difference and is worth a lot time wise though if your car can hook and make use of it.

Earl nailed it.
If you're running 125 mph in the quarter now, forget about motors, transmissions, or rear end gears. Get the suspension and tires to work properly and you'll run mid-10's as is.
Not trying to be an asshole, but did you get your times/mph at a real drag strip and not a g-meter? If so, put some real slicks, the biggest that'll fit, and try some Caltracks or other suspension kit that will make that Merc hook!

[plovett]

Paulie,
I think you have competing goals. Running even high 10s with a 3.64 will take some serious torque. Nitrous or blower in my opinion, especially if you are going to try to come out soft and catch up on the big end. I would look close at the desired end use and if it is a street racer, dump the tall gear

If I had a 4.11 gear with 27" tires I would run out of rpm with a 3 speed with my new combination. I am almost at that point with my little 428. I HAVE to lower (numerically) the gearing.  Just a question of how much. 

Yes, of course I have competing goals.  That is what makes it interesting.  I have never had a combination with too little gear, just too much.   Remember my experiment with the low ratio gear set?  It was fun, but no bueno for actually getting good ET's.  And yes, I can work the throttle, but physics is physics.  Will I gain another 4-5 tenths?  Maybe, maybe not.  But at least it's real.   

paulie

You are in the same boat as everyone else who is in this predicament.   You either add an overdrive for another gear for cruising with a deep gear and big cam, or you pull cam out to get the peak down where it's fitting for a taller gear and learn how to drive it.

You're about to spend a lot of money for an experiment that most of us already know what the results will be.   There's a reason why this is the road less traveled.....

Putting a ported TW on top really just adds icing to the proverbial cake.  No bottom end and the heads/cam won't give you enough to have any top end.

As you surmised Brent, I am trying to figure out a good combo with the limitation of 3 gears.  I've looked at overdrives and decided not to.  I don't think I have made any wild claims or am doing anything too crazy.  I only mentioned that I would love to break into the 10's when someone else brought it up.    Just want to lower the rpms by about 500 and try to get the same result or better than I have now.  More cubes, better heads, and better intake is the plan.  The cam will likely be about the same duration as on my 428. 

And consistently getting 550 hp to the ground on street tires on street surfaces is not easy for me.  On most of my runs I am rolling into the throttle in 1st gear and even then I often spin and have to work the throttle.  No doubt my driving and suspension could be better.  Maybe it is easy for you?

Also, the Tunnel Wedge is just an option.   I have a ported BT 1x4 as well.   I want to try both intakes on the dyno.

Thanks for the info on the cylinder heads.  I don't doubt I will be giving up some power by sticking with the Eboks. 

paulie

[plovett]

With a trap speed of 125, if you optimize it for the track, your car should be deep into the 10s.  I don't street race but I would think you would lose a lot of time from a non prepped surface especially with drag radials. 

After the trip to the track, I put in a new center section going from 4.30s to 3.89s to stay off the limiter and would guess it won't hurt the time much.  A good converter makes a huge difference and is worth a lot time wise though if your car can hook and make use of it.

Earl nailed it.
If you're running 125 mph in the quarter now, forget about motors, transmissions, or rear end gears. Get the suspension and tires to work properly and you'll run mid-10's as is.
Not trying to be an asshole, but did you get your times/mph at a real drag strip and not a g-meter? If so, put some real slicks, the biggest that'll fit, and try some Caltracks or other suspension kit that will make that Merc hook!

No worries.  And yes, my times have been with a G-meter.   An older G-Tech one.  How accurate?  I don't know.  125 mph was my best mph with near perfect weather conditions.  Cold dry air.   Hell, could have had a tail wind for all I know.  It was consistently in the 121-122 range.  I think the rpm on the tach backs that up, but a little harder to tell with the slip of a convertor. 

paulie

[BattlestarGalactic]

At 122 mph, that is 10.8's with some decent acceleration(traction).  The wagon is going 10.7 at 123 mph.

I have a very vintage Vericom VC 2000 that I bought new back in the mid 90's?  There were pricey back then, like $600?  I still have it and have used it a few times in the last few years.  I've been wanting to set it up in the wagon and see how accurate it actually is.  I just forget to take it with me.

I get the whole street racing scenario and trying to hook up on plain asphalt.  It takes LOTS of chassis work and good shocks.  Without that you will just spin your tires no matter how soft you try to leave.  Roll racing makes it even harder because you can't plant the tires properly with the car moving.  You need to shock the tires, lift the nose and plant the tires hard. 

The only easy way to apply power is something like a Grid that you can control the ramp up(timing).  Just like the turbo guys do.  Leave soft, get the nose up, tires planted and then hit it for all she'll take.

[plovett]

Well Paulie, always good to try something,and it’s your car and bank account. Just remember you are trying to make up 11.4% of torque multiplication from the gear change alone, 60 ft lbs or so, and even more when you take out converter, just  to break even

With a cross bolted 427 based stroker with a ported TW, I would be letting it eat if you are running out of rpm with the current motor, that is if being real is street racing

Real is real.  That's all that means.   Yes, I could run the stroked 427 to the same rpm I run my 428, but the whole point of building a bigger motor, for me, is to make similar or better power with less rpm.  I am peaking at maybe 6500-6600 rpm and shifting around 6900-7000 now with my 428.  I have about 405 lbs open spring pressure on a flat tappet cam, titanium retainers...…cruising down the highway at 65 mph and 3600 rpm sucks.   I've never been a displacement junky, but one thing it can do is make power at lower revs.  I'd like lower rpms, lower valve spring pressure, and numerically lower gears.  That'd be nice.

I don't like using torque to measure power, but it should be up about 50 ft/lbs from my current 428.

I don't know why you guys got fixated on the Tunnel Wedge.  I keep saying that is one of two intakes I want to try.  I would guess my 1x4 BT will get the nod, but I want to try both on the dyno.  Real is real, right?  If the Tunnel Wedge surprises me and the curve looks good with the combo, then so be it.  If not, then so be it. 

Anyway, the info on the Trick Flow vs Ed heads was good.  It sounds like those TF's work really well with a small port. 

paulie

[Tommy-T]

I hear you Paulie.
I street raced for years with my Mustang. First with my 390, then with a 454 inch Hi Riser and mini tubbs so I could fit a 11.5 x 29 slick in the wheelwell. In the early '80's there were no fancy "street tires" except for circle track recaps. You were either on slicks or street tires.

It is true the setting your car up for street racing is totally different than for a prepped track. I found that just enough converter so my car would idle in gear with a "snotty" cam and no more worked best to kill off a little torque to limit tire spin. That worked ok at the track too, except your pals with 8" converters or sticks would pull you a couple of cars out of the hole. With a set up like that at the track I could "flat foot" it on the green with no tire spin.

I've always had a 6500 rpm limit on my FE motors. I like a 6K shift point and run out the back door at just under 6500. You see the insides of your motor a lot less often that way. I see guys in magazines that say they can run 9's with 3.50 gears but they must be making tremendous amouts of power. You can run well into the 10's with conservative shift points like that with 600hp or there abouts. You'll still need a tire/suspension set up that works, and at least 4.11's even with your big stroker.

Get the car to the track for some real numbers. Then get it to hook before you mess with the motor any more.