Gauging Interest - Tunnelport Heads

[mbrunson427]

We have been talking with John Bamber and Dave Bamber over the last several months to work on filling “holes” in FE product availability. John reads this forum quite a bit but doesn’t post very often at all. One of the ideas that has come up most frequently is Tunnelport heads. To us it seems that there is a need for replacement heads, and at the same time we believe there is a lot of un-tapped potential in the TP design. I personally believe that there are quite a few more intake manifolds in circulation than heads available to bolt them on.

Here is the current design criteria: Maintain all standard TP architecture (bolt-on use of factory intakes, factory valve covers, factory exhaust flanges). Modern high efficiency combustion chamber. Slightly canted and angled valves with individual shaft rocker arms to maximize flow.

With this design the project should be able to accomplish two goals simultaneously. 1) Make tunnelport replacement heads available. 2) Make serious levels of horsepower when asked for.

At this point the project is pushing forward, but we would like to gauge everyone’s interest to make sure we are on the right track with this one. John and Dave have been fairly exclusively tied to the high boost alcohol tractor and 385 series hemi truck pull industry for decades, but I’m happy that they are starting to meddle in the FE world.

Here are a couple links to get you more familiar with the Bambers....
http://www.bamberengineering.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7CjHfLYdw

[GerryP]

I would be a customer for a modernized tunnel port.

[jayb]

Tunnel port heads were actually on my list to build, after I get my cylinder head package finalized and in production.  If the Bambers are really going to do it, I can go on to other projects.  How serious are they, and do they have experience casting cylinder heads?  If not, trust me when I tell you there is a bit of a learning curve 

[482supersnake]

I think something like the Edelbrock ProPorts but with TP port spacing would be a good idea. I also think that there is a market for matching intake manifolds.

[frnkeore]

I don't care for the canted valve idea but, a integrally cast rocker stands would be good. Old school, YES!

[Dumpling]

Wonder what an ovalized tube over the pusrods in combination with a TFS-style vane in the floor of the intake port would do....

[cjshaker]

If the Bambers are really going to do it, I can go on to other projects.

No comment, just pointing this out. 

[e philpott]

Kaase also has some TP molds , not sure if he has much interest in doing anything but he has the molds

[Joey120373]

I have, for a long time, wished that someone would offer a “modern” TP head. Even a raised port version and manifold, so long as it still looked basically “stock” to the casual observer.

Idea being that this head/intake could be bolted to any FE and make great power and dominate the “cool” factor. That said, canted valves changes everything. Angled pushrod tubes?

My vote is yes please, just do it. While I would prefer a version that could use stock valve train and pistons, I can appreciate why, when going to all the effort of casting new heads, it would be hard, if not foolish, not to improve the valve train and valve angles.

For those of us not wanting to rev pst 6500 and run race gas all the time, the stock(ish) valve train is perfectly adequate....

[70tp]

I wish someone would hurry.   My old , beat up stuff needs an update to keep me from crossing over to the other side (385 series)

[Katz427]

Really a tunnel port head, without the pushrod tube, and raised up, would be nice. However that is what Jay has, and 400+ cfm. I just see a tunnel port as well, ok, nostalgic. I have a tunnel port, but think a raised straight in port, without a pushrod tube , is a better solution, especially for big power numbers.

[Joey120373]

I agree, I think Jays head is a game changer, and the intake port is going to be hard to improve upon within “stock” dimensions. But I’ve always liked the way the TP looked, for me it’s a nostalgia thing.

Looking at the web site linked, they appear to do billet heads, I’m wondering if the proposed FE head would be the same? Would it be a race only head or something that has a coolant passages and something less than a 5 digit price tag?..

[fastf67]

Love the idea of the more stock appearing tunnel port with new technology, with a slightly raised exhaust port (exhaust is a big killer in fe's) would open more doors for show/street/strip people. I would be up for that.

[Ghoughton]

I love the idea. I raced a Tunnel Port for a while. And it’s tough to beat the “cool” factor. I think
any modern improvements would be good. Including canting the valves, raising the ports and eliminating the pushrod tubes. I dreamed about pushrod tube elimination after seeing all the offset rocker combos in the race world. And Jay proved it can be done with his design. I’m committed to buying a set of Jays, but if some modern Tunnel Ports were available, I’d find a use for them.

[machoneman]

I wonder. Could a new TP head eliminate the p-rod tube itself but allow the p-rod to remain?

Maybe a brainstorm session on how to seal the top/bottom of each p-rod in the ports as it moves up/down yet stil block any oil loss?

[turbohunter]

Has there ever been any experimenting with push rod passage shapes?

[GerryP]

Like wind tunnel?  Probably not that.  No doubt on a flow bench, but if you already know something from aerospace testing, then you apply it.  There are photos out there of builders using an airfoil-shaped tube instead of the round tube.  You do whatever it takes when you need just five more horsepower.

From reading the responses here, I think most would be better off with Jay's upcoming race head.

I was thinking a TP with standard port locations and being able to use currently available hardware.  A revised, high-velocity port with a modern combustion chamber would be great.  Relocated ports requiring custom intakes and exhaust, custom valvetrain and all that puts that head out of reach for me.  I'd love to be able to run a tunnel port, but I don't want to have to spend five figures to do it. 

[Henrysnephew]

Has there ever been any experimenting with push rod passage shapes?

Quite a few T/ports got pushrod tube work.  The main goal at the time was more pushrod clearance for bigger cam grinds, but an oval shape was necessary so as not to further restrict flow.  Randy M

[turbohunter]

I’m in the cool factor camp. If parts were available and didn’t cost to much I’d build one just because.

[jbamber]

Tunnel port heads were actually on my list to build, after I get my cylinder head package finalized and in production.  If the Bambers are really going to do it, I can go on to other projects.  How serious are they, and do they have experience casting cylinder heads?  If not, trust me when I tell you there is a bit of a learning curve 

We are doing the tunnel port project.  We are already working with a major cylinder head casting foundry who will be casting these heads, and we will fully leverage their expertise.  Combined with our own expertise, I don’t expect major set-backs.

[jbamber]

I think something like the Edelbrock ProPorts but with TP port spacing would be a good idea. I also think that there is a market for matching intake manifolds.

In addition to our best version, we will likely offer a TP capable version, set up for stock valves and rocker arms.  If there is enough demand, we will develop ports and chamber for it – otherwise it will be a “ProPort” sort of offering.  We plan to develop and provide intake manifolds after we have the cylinder heads in production.

Kaase also has some TP molds , not sure if he has much interest in doing anything but he has the molds

Once we have developed our design, we may contact him.  I’m reluctant, since last time I talked to him about a project (SOHC FE) a couple years ago, he convinced me it was a bad business decision, and I dropped it.  I have a soft spot for the FE’s, since they are the reason both me and my brother are in the racing business. I built a nasty (in the day) 428 for my ’70 half ton, then eventually moved the engine to a ’67 Cougar GT.  Between those vehicles, I embarrassed LS6’s and a couple L88s, and at least one hemi Cuda. Lots of great memories and stories (all street racing).

I have, for a long time, wished that someone would offer a “modern” TP head. Even a raised port version and manifold, so long as it still looked basically “stock” to the casual observer.

Idea being that this head/intake could be bolted to any FE and make great power and dominate the “cool” factor. That said, canted valves changes everything. Angled pushrod tubes?

My vote is yes please, just do it. While I would prefer a version that could use stock valve train and pistons, I can appreciate why, when going to all the effort of casting new heads, it would be hard, if not foolish, not to improve the valve train and valve angles.

For those of us not wanting to rev pst 6500 and run race gas all the time, the stock(ish) valve train is perfectly adequate....

We plan to orient the rockers so the existing pushrod tubes will be utilized – the constraint of utilizing the stock valve covers is a major limitation – the valve angles will be limited more than we would like.  Canting and angling not only provides the effects of raising the port, it also creates a situation where the valves unshroud as they open. Often, the valves can be bigger in a head with canted and angled valves than in a head with a straight valve arrangement.

This design would be FAR easier without all of the constraints, but……

Really a tunnel port head, without the pushrod tube, and raised up, would be nice. However that is what Jay has, and 400+ cfm. I just see a tunnel port as well, ok, nostalgic. I have a tunnel port, but think a raised straight in port, without a pushrod tube , is a better solution, especially for big power numbers.

While we would MUCH rather not have a pushrod tube in the port, we are committed to keeping the Nostalgia factor, and allowing the use of existing manifolds.  We have experience developing ports with obstacles (pushrods, head bolts).  We flow all of our ports with the intended manifold (or runner) attached, so we know what the flow to the engine really is, including obstacles.  I’ll be very surprised if we don’t have intake flow in the 400’s, with proportionally correct exhaust flow.

[Joe-JDC]

I bet there are not 100 people in the USA that would actually race a Tunnel Port if the heads were available.  They would go on a show car, or hobby car, or shelf, and become a conversation item.  Left for kids to dispose of.  After this generation of folks passes on, the FE hobby will fade away if your grandchildren are anything like mine.(20-30 years old)  They are not interested in Fairlanes, Thunderbirds, Shelbys, Mustangs unless it is a Coyote.  Just trying to bring some sanity to this conversation.  The FE aftermarket is saturated now in reality, and this forum is one of the things keeping it alive.  Without Jay's forum, the other FE forums have turned into a glorified "Craig's listing" with lots of misinformation.  Joe-JDC

[turbohunter]

I don’t know about that Mr. Craine. It will certainly be a tight market, but there are lots of kids out there that think our cars are pretty darn cool.
They’re are the same kids that understand our music. Take flatheads for instance. Young guns are driving that market.

[Barry_R]

I had a chance to examine a pair of tunnel port prototype castings that one of the GT40 guys was having cast several years ago.
The ones that were on site were too thin in a few places, and last I knew they were going to be revised a bit.
I do not know if the project ever came to fruition, or how many were cast if they did go to production.

[GerryP]

I bet there are not 100 people in the USA that would actually race a Tunnel Port if the heads were available....

I don't think there's any argument against that.  The great unknown is the street user.  Are there more than 100 of those?  Probably.  Making parts for obsolete engines has to be risky.  Even the SBC will one day be as common as Studebaker R3 and no new parts will support users.

I would like to run a tunnel port just for the nostalgia and street cred;  "Yeah, it has tunnel port heads."  I imagine that's going to be the market.  But if it requires a huge investment to run it, then that's going to trim the market some.

[1968galaxie]

There are several FE cylinder heads available now.
Edelbrock, Edelbrock Pro-port, BBM, and Trick Flow.
Edelbrock Pro-port heads have been used on 800+ HP applications (a very few up to 1000 hp)
TFS heads on a few 700 HP builds.
Ported TFS will support 750 perhaps 800 HP?
Also factory high risers, tunnel ports, medium riser, and factory 428CJ, Canadian CJ, and various 390 castings.

The issue for many is cost to build a 700+ HP FE.
Even at "only" 700 HP level the factory blocks are not going to survive long.
Aftermarket block - big $.
Even with aftermarket FE blocks - demand is too low to reduce pricing to 385 series race blocks.

I still love the FE - but the $$$$ to build anything reliable over 600 hp becomes prohibitive.
The heads aren't the issue here - the block is.

JMO

[Henrysnephew]

I have to agree with Mr. Craine but only to a point ... in the late '50s - mid '60s you couldn't give flathead stuff away.  In the '60s - '70s it was the Y-block.  In the '80s it was the FE's turn.  They have ALL come back with well-deserved popularity but, in general, the market for ALL of the dinosaurs is going to soften as time goes on (not just Ford).  The next generation is going to "plug in" whether they want to or not.  JMO.  Randy M   

[frnkeore]

I have to agree, regarding the block but, that is where the FE has a advantage, in it's basic, light weight design. Affordable, cross bolted, aluminum blocks, I think would help in extending the FE's longevity.

Regarding the TP heads, I don't think the push rod tube limits them, at all. You can get all the CSA you want with it and you can deal with the tube, in two ways.

1. A airfoil shaped tube, that can also be used to direct flow to advantage how it inters the bowl. A radius around the tube at entry and exit to mitigate turbulence, in those areas.

2. A thin wall behind the airfoil tube, separating the port but, enhancing the  flow into the bowl.

It wouldn't look exactly like a FE but, a 3rd option could be a 3 valve head, similar to the Gurney/Westlake. Done right that would be worth at least 50 ci and still have inline valves. Anyone want to round a 385 against that combo?

Another way to get rid of the tubes, would be a timing belt driven, inline, SOHC head, it would be a lot cheaper than the hemi headed "Cammer".

[Thumperbird]

My opinion, for the most part the only reason there is an FE renaissance is because 50/60/70 year olds grew up around them, want a retro ride, and have money now.
As soon as the 50 year olds push through the phase which isn't too far off demand will drop like a rock, very few 40's and younger folks looking at this old stuff, a few yes but just look at the average car show, a bunch of geriatrics!

[GerryP]

...very few 40's and younger folks looking at this old stuff, a few yes but just look at the average car show, a bunch of geriatrics!

Just my opinion, but you have to look to the kit car market for some of that resurgence in FEs.  Yeah, there are a lot of LS and various other engines under the bonnet of those Cobras and GT40s, but there's only one way to do it right and that's with an FE.  And what would the baddest of the bad-assed Cobras be?  One powered by a cammer.  There are a lot of owners out there well under 50.  I think there are as many reasons as there are owners.  We should be grateful that there are so many people out there who make all this possible.

[blykins]

Blair once told me that the TP design was so that a 380 cfm TP head behaved like a 330-340 cfm cylinder head because of the pushrod tube design.   I love Tunnel Ports, but what he told seems to hold true to a great degree.  A 465ci 380cfm TP (of course ported heads/intake with raised floors) with a 2x4 intake will make about 695 hp here and a 465ci 340 cfm TFS head with a 2x4 intake will make about 680 here.  Same camshaft, same compression ratio. 

I think trying to make the pushrod tube design work to a high degree will be difficult, not to mention that it makes fitting pushrods a real pain in the hindend sometimes. 

With that being said, the TP is my fave FE....

On a different note, the vast majority of my customers are in their 50's and 60's.  I get some guys with Mustangs and Cobra replicas that are in their 30's and 40's, but they're few and far between.  The Cobra crowd with the young guys will be the ones to carry the FE on, if we can keep them away from Coyotes and LS engines.

[Dumpling]

Another way to get rid of the tubes, would be a timing belt driven, inline, SOHC head, it would be a lot cheaper than the hemi headed "Cammer".

Pete? Aardema offered such heads for the FE. The problem with that design is that lift is limited due to the lack of rockers.

The future?

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1128312_electric-crate-motor-kit-is-ready-for-your-ev-project-what-would-you-make

[frnkeore]

Another way to get rid of the tubes, would be a timing belt driven, inline, SOHC head, it would be a lot cheaper than the hemi headed "Cammer".

Pete? Aardema offered such heads for the FE. The problem with that design is that lift is limited due to the lack of rockers.

You just add a rocker/fallower, under the cam, no buckets.

[Dumpling]

I talked with him over the phone. Rockers weren't an option, buckets only. Very little is "just add" in the world of FE's and /or custom design.

[Yellow Truck]

I am a great admirer of Jay, the other builders, and the FE fans on this forum. I have never experienced the same level of generosity with information combined with true expertise in any other place, including ones I use for things like my big diesel motorhome. The lack of stupid arguments is one thing, but the deep expertise and freedom with the information is wonderful.

I'm the target you guys are talking about. I built my first FE when I was in my late 50's with parts specified and provided by Barry. I could not have built it and got it running without this forum. The only other engine I'd have liked to build would have been a Flatty. Why? Because they are iconic. The SBC is everywhere, but it isn't iconic. Personally I find the SBC ugly, but the real thing for me is the only American V8 to win LeMans was an FE.

The draw backs to building an FE are lack of local expertise and support. I was lucky to have a friend who had done a bunch of junkyard FE builds, and he encouraged me. You can go almost anywhere and find people that will build a small block chev.

We don't need a new FE head to grow interest in the FE, although it wouldn't hurt. We need access to a good block, preferably cast iron, and a near mass produced quality engine. I say near mass produced because the FE will be up against the Coyote and the LS, and while some (like me) really enjoyed going through all the options, doing the research, studying this forum, and measuring and building the engine, most just want a reliable mill.

If the builders on this forum really want to create new demand for the FE you can get together and secure a good supply of blocks, and then agree on a couple of standard build packages that any punter like me can call you up and say I want an X displacement FE with the Y package, and it shows up, installs, runs, and reliably makes the specified HP and torque. It would be great if all of you offered similar standard packages because it isn't like people like me won't then ask you what you would do to make it specific to me. I liked Barry's Prison Break option as a starting point, then I did my own thing after that. Jay's intake book was hugely valuable to me - it helped me recognize the Street Dominator I was offered was a pretty good option.

And having a TP option would be excellent, as would Jay's heads. Think about it guys, this forum shows you are willing to cooperate to help keep this venerated engine alive in the popular imagination.

[blykins]

I talked with him over the phone. Rockers weren't an option, buckets only. Very little is "just add" in the world of FE's and /or custom design.

Right.  A lobe/rocker/follower system is still low lift.  With modular Fords (think 4.6L 2V/3V/4V and even Coyote), you will only see .400-.560" lift at the valve.   When I messed with a 4.6L DOHC engine, the lift was .475" at the valve.

[frnkeore]

In a new design, it can be anything you want.

[e philpott]

I bet they would sell a few pallets of tunnel ports right now with modern chamber and stock type-improved port if they were ready .

[GerryP]

I bet they would sell a few pallets of tunnel ports right now with modern chamber and stock type-improved port if they were ready .

Maybe three or four pallets.  And after I ordered my set, I'd be buying one of Jay's adapters for TP heads.  So, two companies would be making some spending money on that deal.

[C8OZ]

I'd be in for a set of stock-appearing, standard exhaust location and intake fitment, improved chamber/port.

Not sure how small a minority that puts me in, but I'm used to it. 

[cammerfe]

I am in the process of design/build on a land speed car that will be powered by an FE. I had intended to do a 385, but Jay's efforts have pulled me back to the FE.

Virtually anything is available if you have the determination. I live in Metro Detroit, with its plethora of machining operations, and such a thing as a forged billet aluminum FE block is a reality if you're willing to pay. It's my intention to do a first engine using a BBM iron block, and when the car is running and drivable, I'll step up and put in a first order (at least five blocks necessary) for the billet items. Virtually any change in architecture is available by request.

This is a long range project and it'll probably be a year before I order the blocks.

KS

[turbohunter]

Look at the amount of interest in one day. We’re over a thousand views. Obviously there are multiple views with each person (which indicates interest also) but other threads started at the same time as this one have quite a few less views.
I’d buy a set just to have them. Then I’d look for a manifold, etc.
TPs are cool.

[machoneman]

I bet there are not 100 people in the USA that would actually race a Tunnel Port if the heads were available.  They would go on a show car, or hobby car, or shelf, and become a conversation item.  Left for kids to dispose of.  After this generation of folks passes on, the FE hobby will fade away if your grandchildren are anything like mine.(20-30 years old)  They are not interested in Fairlanes, Thunderbirds, Shelbys, Mustangs unless it is a Coyote.  Just trying to bring some sanity to this conversation.  The FE aftermarket is saturated now in reality, and this forum is one of the things keeping it alive.  Without Jay's forum, the other FE forums have turned into a glorified "Craig's listing" with lots of misinformation.  Joe-JDC

I agree Joe but reluctantly.

Here in the greater Chicagoland area, it's true that kids look at our old iron and admire it but would not invest $1 in one. They are all into rad Asian cars, turbos, 5" exhausts, lowering and more. Besides, they literally can't afford the expense to acquire one and as gas-gobling monsters, only we older gents can afford.

Another sign is that local owners of Model A's and T's literally can't give them away as older guys pass away by the score and their kids have a devil of a time disposing of them. Heck, even a '60's-70's muscle car guy like me wouldn't be caught dead with a old wooden-wheeled antique.

And yes, that maybe 100 max actual racers using a new TP design methinks is a high number. Most would end up on cars for the oh, wow factor.

[TomP]

I like the idea, cool to see Bamber Eng going through with it.  I don't think the pushrod tube is that much of an issue. I had a set of tunnel ports 30 years ago that I radically reworked with 5 /16" stem valves and welded and raised exhaust ports. We flow tested them with and without the intake and with a clay entrance with a piece of 5/8" shaft stuck to it. The pushrod tube barely mattered, like an island in a river.

[mbrunson427]

Look at the amount of interest in one day. We’re over a thousand views. Obviously there are multiple views with each person (which indicates interest also) but other threads started at the same time as this one have quite a few less views.
I’d buy a set just to have them. Then I’d look for a manifold, etc.
TPs are cool.

Marc, this is the type of response that I was speculating, just wasn't sure about. I had seen a guy post something on the FB Fanatics page maybe 2 or 3 years back about repro TP heads and he received a ton of positive feedback, but that project must have died.

[Greaterthenjake]

I lurk here alot... tons of amazing info I fit into that under 40 crowd trying to piece together a FE. Tunnel port cammer parts etc even a solid FE the entrance fee is steep. Steeper still for the exotic stuff. Its a solid platform that no one else I know in my age bracket want to deal with. Sad but things like lack of hardened seats in stock heads and so few machinists will touch them keeps the ls swap crowd running strong. That said it's nice to see people trying to make this stuff available to those of us who came too late to score it when ford unloaded.

[mike7570]

Bench racing here - If I still had my 452ci tunnel port, I sell the heads, intake and valve train for almost enough money to cover the cost of Jay's new head package. What would I gain?
I'm thinking the heads out of the box pick me up 50-75 hp and I have a myriad of new intakes available. Throw in a new cam and a tunnel ram and I'm knocking on 750hp?  (basically similar short blocks other than the cubes)
Now I could get the TP heads and intake ports worked on and a bigger cam and I'm what 675hp or so and only have 2 or 3 intakes available to use.
For the racer the available power level of Jay's new heads is much more appealing and I suspect after he gets the cam sorted and maybe some port clean up they're up to 900hp.

[cammerfe]

Just as a 'by the way' comment on the subject of TP engines, I got a set of TP heads out the side door at EEE during the time when the TP engine was going through the run up to its use in the LeMans GT40s. I got a pair of heads, a dual-plane dual quad manifold, and a pair of the 652 center-squirters.

Brother Lon bought a new short block 427 and we put the engine together to run in his '67 Mustang. Finally damaged that engine at Milan one warm day, and exchanged it for a medium-riser that ran in the car for a number of years.

Came time to go through the car one more time and I sat down with Jim Dove and we looked at what might make sense. Jim made up a set of tunnel-port heads with very close to factory details on the intake side. (I'd talked to Mose Nowland regarding possible changes to both the placement and shape of the PR tubes. He assured me that the guys testing variants to the tube area had come to the conclusion that there was nothing worthwhile to be found by being exotic.)

The exhaust was a different situation. Jim's 'Type Two' design raised the exhaust runners, changed the spacing, and re-shaped the runners. If you look at the billet head photos above, you'll notice that they are sort of an oval with one lower corner pulled in. That's the shape Jim Dove came up with. The changes to the exhaust runners was so significant that the exterior of the heads differed substantially from any factory design. Mounting the heads to a block and putting the block in the engine compartment made it possible to see clearly that the spring towers had to be eliminated. Rolling a sheet of typewriter paper and inserting it into the exhaust runner made it obvious that the exit was aimed up very pronouncedly.

We removed the spring towers completely and dropped the attachment points for the upper A-arms much as was done in the GT350 conversion. The filler panel where the towers were cut away were filled and reinforced so as to be able to mount QA-1 coilovers out in the wheelwell. An upper bracket was attached to the filler panel. Upper and lower arms were tubular.

All that work made possible custom headers that were uncompromised. There was more than six inches of header out of the flange before any tube changed direction at all. On the driver's side, we re-did the steering so as to get rid of the rag-joint and use Borgeson all-steel universals in such a way as to leave the header uncompromised as well.

Then Lon sold the car to someone in New Zealand.

KS

[feadam]

any timeline of when you would have heads?

[cammerfe]

If that question was aimed at me, Jay told me that my position in the ordering line put me at sometime after June. His experiences with rocker arms came after that pronouncement so my expectation, at this point, being realistic, is sometime next fall.

KS

[jbamber]

any timeline of when you would have heads?

We won't have a firm timeline until we have a design, and a commitment from the foundry.  However, we do want to move as quickly as possible.

Our development process is as follows:

• I create a CAD model which includes all of the constraints, and has our best shot at the port/chambers.  The layout often driven by the valvetrain and it's constraints.
• I create a prototype of a single cylinder for flow development.  Below is the most recent example - this is an updated Boss head for the 385 series.  On this one, I removed most of the material on the outside of the port so Dave could easily locate and install a down nozzle for wet flow testing.  This head will be primarily used on methanol burning engines.
  
  
  You may notice it doesn't even have valvetrain mounting provisions - it is for flow development only.  We expect to be at this step in a few weeks.
• Dave does his magic with flow development, and final sparkplug location in the chamber - which is based on wet flow testing.
• I digitize the optimize ports, chamber and sparkplug location then put them in the CAD model, then finish the design of the remaining items.
• I program and machine a billet version of the heads for early testing.  At that point, we will have to decide whether to include water passages (for gas) or test with methanol.
• The cast version will become available as soon as possible after testing and any revisions.

[e philpott]

Dang , that Boss section would look good on the mantel above the fire place in the living room

[GerryP]

Dang , that Boss section would look good on the mantel above the fire place in the living room

Ha, ha.  I was thinking the same thing.  Instead of those bland glass globes, corporate recognition trophies should be that carving.  At least it would be a startling conversation piece.  At least the guys would appreciate it.  I don't know what you'd do for women...maybe a sponge or something like that.

[My427stang]

I love lots of options for the FE, and looking for a 400+ CFM option that has a decent volume and fits under the hood of my Mustang, but why a TP? 

Are they making an intake too?  A high port, medium volume, fast TP would be awesome if there was an easy way to the carb.

[Katz427]

I'm not saying anything, to throw water on anybody's ideas. I just wanted to comment, on stuff from the late 60's thru mid 70's. At that time I was on a crew part time that ran a modified, with 427 with hi riser heads. When the tunnel ports became available, the car owner, wanted to try them. The lap times, never matched the hi-riser. The driver said the hi-riser had a broader power curve. Now I'm talking  3/8, 1/2, and 3/4 mile tracks. The car was later sold, and replaced by a new car with a 500 inch BBC. At Thompson speedway, the old car with 427 hi-riser was brought along to make the deal with it's new owner. The BBC had problems during practice, and the owner decided to pull the car. The new owner suggested that " why not run the old car with the Ford". Which they did, the driver won the consi, and starting at the back, worked his way to a 4th place finish, behind 3 BBC that we're all near 500 inches. Just for some history, some might enjoy.

[frnkeore]

What you are talking about, involves port velocity. With a new head, you can configure the port to have the right velocity, for the application, with much increased flow.

My question to jbamber is, what valve head sizes will be run in the canted vs a inline head.

[e philpott]

Tunnel Port sure went toe to toe against the Hemi's in Nascar in the 60's

[Katz427]

I hate messing with this post, since it is about interest in the tp. Yes the tunnel port was pretty effective against the hemi. The hi-riser was banned at the end of 1964, by Nascar. The only options were the rare SK medium riser until the tp became available. However the high riser was the power plant for most, like Gerry Chamberlain, Jim Shampine, Maynard Troyer , Red Farmer and others on the short tracks. Dick Trickle did use the tp, when it became available in his short track car , as that was about the only head, other than the medium riser that was legal.

[feadam]

I watched chamberlain win many races in the 76. He would be the only ford in most races and won many.

[Joey120373]

Weather or not you go ahead with it....please post more pics of your development units, that thing is just plain cool!

I hope you get enough interest to proceed with it though. The TP is probably my Favorite looking engine. Of course the HR and SOHC are right up there, followed by the boss 385, but the TP is top of the heap in my book. Even if its not the "best".

 

[mike7570]

I hope you get enough interest to proceed with it though. The TP is probably my Favorite looking engine.

The only visual difference is the intake, I had a single plane with a dominator flange on my super-gas car one year at Pomona. At tech I had a door bar come up about .004 thin, I took it over to Hansen's to get it changed quickly. While there Roy Hill walks in and actually stops and takes a good look at my engine. Made me smile, it did look a bit racier with the dominator vs the 660's. (maybe it was the Mercury valve covers )

[jbamber]

I'm not saying anything, to throw water on anybody's ideas. I just wanted to comment, on stuff from the late 60's thru mid 70's........

No worries here – your experience is a great example of why we chose the tunnel port head to improve.  We believe the Tunnel Port has tremendous untapped potential, and our goal is to fully tap that potential.

My question to jbamber is, what valve head sizes will be run in the canted vs a inline head.

We won’t know the valve sizes until we are finished developing the flow.   Given the tremendous space constraint of the stock valve cover, the valve angle and cant will be very limited.  I doubt the sizes will be significantly different than are commonly used for the “in-line” FE heads.  Dave is REALLY good with exhaust flow, so you will probably notice a bit bigger exhaust/intake valve size difference than is typical.

It would have been a lot easier for us to repurpose the 385 Boss Hemi design to fit the FE – which would have significantly larger valves, and more performance potential.  However, we felt the FE community would rather have the maximum performance possible while using stock valve covers and manifolds – as close to a “factory” look as possible.

Weather or not you go ahead with it....please post more pics of your development units, that thing is just plain cool!

Thank you for the kind words!  Not all of our prototype heads turn out as cool as the BBF Boss head did.  Until recently, we 3d printed them.  Dave prefers to work with aluminum, and the time I had to spend altering the model so it was conducive for 3d printing provided no further benefit.  By doing them from aluminum, my programming time is leveraged when we machine the production heads.

[cjshaker]

Until recently, we 3d printed them.  Dave prefers to work with aluminum, and the time I had to spend altering the model so it was conducive for 3d printing provided no further benefit.  By doing them from aluminum, my programming time is leveraged when we machine the production heads.

You were 3D printing heads? That's interesting, because typically 3D printing hasn't been thought of as advanced enough to make parts capable of taking high heat and/or stress loads. That changed when I saw some videos of gun barrel/slides in 45 caliber that were 3D printed. They went through some rigorous testing that seemed to prove out the technology. To me,it seemed that if it could take the chamber pressures of a 45 caliber cartridge, it could withstand automotive engine applications. I hadn't seen anything since those videos though, and that was a few years ago.

[jbamber]

You were 3D printing heads?

OOPs.  I meant prototype heads, but that isn't what the words say.  I was replying to Joey120373's comment about our prototype heads.  We almost always do flow/chamber development in a prototype head before finalizing the design.  If we are lucky, we get it done with only one version of the prototype head.  Not always, though.

[e philpott]

I would look into using the High Riser rocker pad since it's higher up for a higher roof compared to the TP rocker pad  , that's the one thing HR's had over all the other pushrod FE's

[Katz427]

Mahle is doing 3D printed pistons for Porsche turbo. Video on Mahle site.

[GerryP]

Mahle is doing 3D printed pistons for Porsche turbo. Video on Mahle site.

I don't know that I'd trust a piston made of toner. 

[Ghoughton]

Have you considered raising the port and extending the face of the head like Kasse did with the SR71?
Those seem exceptional for a CJ style head.

[Chrisss31]

I breezed through a lot of this so forgive me if it's already been suggested...  Would it be possible to machine the pushrod tube as part of the port as opposed to placing a tube in after?  There would be a lot of benefits doing it that way.

[jbamber]

Have you considered raising the port and extending the face of the head like Kasse did with the SR71?
Those seem exceptional for a CJ style head.

We will consider this tactic; we've used it before, too.  The feasibility of using this tactic on the FE, however, is affected by the fact the upper valve cover rail is part of the intake manifold.  Since we want to allow the use of stock valve covers, moving the upper valve cover rail up, requires raising the lower rail, too.  The exhaust rockers may not be very happy about that idea.  These re-designs are almost always an exercise in optimizing the compromises, so we will have to work through all of these choices.

Would it be possible to machine the pushrod tube as part of the port as opposed to placing a tube in after?  There would be a lot of benefits doing it that way.

Compatibility with existing intake manifolds is one of our design criteria - but that doesn't mean an unmodified tunnel port manifold will provide optimum performance.  It only means it will fit and function.  I believe your question applies to the intake manifolds we will produce.  If so, the best manufacturing technique will heavily depend on the characteristics of the optimized intake manifold runner design.

[SSdynosaur]

The window of tolerance for moving the valve cover rails or altering the angle of the valve cover may be much smaller than first appearances. Keep in mind that your target public will include a high percentage of unit-body design installs who's purchase will be influenced by mandatory relocation of master cylinders to accommodate interference with valve cover rail modifications.

[jbamber]

The window of tolerance for moving the valve cover rails or altering the angle of the valve cover may be much smaller than first appearances. Keep in mind that your target public will include a high percentage of unit-body design installs who's purchase will be influenced by mandatory relocation of master cylinders to accommodate interference with valve cover rail modifications.

Excellent point.  I added "stock valve cover location" to my constraints for the project.

[PLemoine]

I would definitely be interested in a few sets that would use the factory intakes and valve covers. I currently have just about all of the Ford intakes and an Algon fuel injection manifold.

[dozz302]

I think most (majority) would like to see these heads work on a completely stock 427 myself included.
Once you start changing the factory specifications to "custom" > have to mill this, drill that, buy this part, different valve cover angle > to run them interest will drop off.
Great someone is looking in making a set though!

[FERoadster]

I'll chime in about FE VC's because that's what I specialize in in my collection.
Not interested in TP heads since my cars are/will be street driven.
To me as long as a stock VC can be mounted on a Head/intake combo with some sort of a stepped adapter (even thought it may be further away from the block). I wouldn't mind the minor difference in appearance.
Just my point of view (POV).
Richard >>> FERoadster

[jbamber]

I think most (majority) would like to see these heads work on a completely stock 427 myself included.
Once you start changing the factory specifications to "custom" > have to mill this, drill that, buy this part, different valve cover angle > to run them interest will drop off.
Great someone is looking in making a set though!

All of our solutions will provide exactly what you describe - a bolt-on package which will work with a stock 427 block, tunnel port intake manifold, stock exhaust (in the stock location). and stock valve covers (in the stock location).  As we get closer to release, we will post details in the Vendor Classifieds, but for clarity now here is the summary:

We will offer two tunnel port head packages:

Maximum Performance – this version will have canted and angled valves, and use individual shaft mounted rocker arms. This version will require modifications inside the ports of the intake manifold.  We will offer the recommended manifold modifications as a service, and provide instructions for those who wish to make their own intake manifold modifications.  We expect this version to easily flow more than 400 CFM.

The Maximum Performance version will be offered in a package which contains all custom items needed to assemble the engine - fully cleaned and assembled heads, rocker arms, rocker stands, intake gasket, and ARP fasteners.  No searching required.

Original Fit -  this version will use the factory rocker arms, and doesn't require the manifold modifications.  The Original Fit version is for people who are more concerned about preserving "original" than maximum performance.  The performance of this version will be better than the factory tunnel port heads, but will not be as high as the Maximum Performance version.

I'll chime in about FE VC's because that's what I specialize in in my collection.
Not interested in TP heads since my cars are/will be street driven.
To me as long as a stock VC can be mounted on a Head/intake combo with some sort of a stepped adapter (even thought it may be further away from the block). I wouldn't mind the minor difference in appearance.
Just my point of view (POV).
Richard >>> FERoadster

You would be happy with these heads in a street driven vehicle.  The intake port will be sized correctly for the valve size (the factory intake ports are WAY too big), and the exhaust flow will be the correct proportion to the intake flow.

[My427stang]

I'd love to see it happen, would also like to see a port injection-ready modern intake that will fit under the hood (if you need specifics, a Boss 9 scoop on a 70 Mustang...)   

When BBM delivers next, I will be doing at least a 511 for my car, likely supercharged, and it needs a decision on heads

[Dumpling]

I'd love to see it happen, would also like to see a port injection-ready modern intake that will fit under the hood (if you need specifics, a Boss 9 scoop on a 70 Mustang...)   

Wasn't there an IR crossram cast for the tumnelport? That should fit under a hood.

[mbrunson427]

Wasn't there an IR crossram cast for the tumnelport? That should fit under a hood.
[/quote]

Funny you say that.....here's a recent story of mine. I have spent a significant number of hours in my life looking up and researching those intake manifolds, tried to get David Dove to make me one too. I was in a local shop a few weeks back, the guy was showing me some of his stuff, and on the bottom shelf sits a tunnelport IR intake manifold complete with all the throttle blades, linkage, everything! I have shifted my efforts from having one made to sweet talking this guy out of his 

[My427stang]

I want a big single 4, but those are very cool

[dozz302]

An absolute work of art! Great pictures!

[turbohunter]

OOOOOOOH MY.
That is beautiful.

[GerryP]

.....

Original Fit -  this version will use the factory rocker arms, and doesn't require the manifold modifications.  The Original Fit version is for people who are more concerned about preserving "original" than maximum performance.  The performance of this version will be better than the factory tunnel port heads, but will not be as high as the Maximum Performance version.
...
You would be happy with these heads in a street driven vehicle.  The intake port will be sized correctly for the valve size (the factory intake ports are WAY too big), and the exhaust flow will be the correct proportion to the intake flow.

Perfect.  I look forward to the announcement.

[mbrunson427]

Tunnelport related.... This engine should hit the dyno next week, Blair almost has it ready. 482 cube, BBM block. The intake manifold is a little funky, its a dual plane that somebody had cut all of the dividers out of. Whoever did the work did a real clean job! The dyno headers will have an O2 sensor on each cylinder to make sure the intake isn't causing problems. The intake may work great, may be a handicap, we'll have to see.

[428kidd]

Mike or anyone for that matter I have seen a lot of the plenums cut out or cut down I should say. What is the purpose of that and does it hurt or help? Seems like I saw this done in some early to mid 70s magazine article . I have a high riser intake thst has been done that way. Thanks Lance 

[Joe-JDC]

The ones I have seen lose over 50 hp and torque, and spit and sputter until the engine gets over 4000 rpm.  Hard to dyno test because of the lack of airflow at lower speeds.  I would never do that for a customer, nor would I recommend it to anyone.  Joe-JDC

[blykins]

Mike or anyone for that matter I have seen a lot of the plenums cut out or cut down I should say. What is the purpose of that and does it hurt or help? Seems like I saw this done in some early to mid 70s magazine article . I have a high riser intake thst has been done that way. Thanks Lance

I've done it on similar engines and not seen any difference, but those similar engines were lower rpm stuff, around 5500-6000 rpm.   On higher rpm engines I've seen it add power.

I don't cut the divider out, I cut down about a half inch, then shape it into the plenum, and bull-nose the leading edge. 

[Joe-JDC]

Brent, look at that picture again.  Someone cut down into the lower plane, not just the divider.  Now the runner is only a few inches long at most.  No velocity, no torque.   Joe-JDC

[blykins]

Brent, look at that picture again.  Someone cut down into the lower plane, not just the divider.  Now the runner is only a few inches long at most.  No velocity, no torque.   Joe-JDC

Gotcha.  I thought Lance was asking about just cutting/shaping the divider.

[67gt350]

I have read through this a couple of times and I hope I didn't miss this. Will you be offering intake manifolds for your heads? I know with some searching tunnel port intakes can be found but having one or two choices ( my vote is for the single plane dual four C7OE-9424-A) would make this an easier for guys to make the purchase, in my opinion. I would also wonder if Jays intake adapter would open up some choices for other "tops" too??

[Dumpling]

Brent, look at that picture again.  Someone cut down into the lower plane, not just the divider.  Now the runner is only a few inches long at most.  No velocity, no torque.   Joe-JDC

Would make a good base to mount/use a supercharger. Either on top or front mounted.

[pbf777]

...............look at that picture again.  Someone cut down into the lower plane, not just the divider.  Now the runner is only a few inches long at most. 

     Actually looks like a nice execution effort, not that I would have recommended all of the effort to basically turn a rather rare C7OE-9425-B 427 T.P. 8V Dual plane intake into a somewhat more readily available C7OE-9425-A 8V single plane unit with some characteristics of the "Y"-Block stacked port configuration and perhaps a few other anomalies making it in the end perhaps not as good as the latter .     

     But still, run it and see!     

     Scott.

[jbamber]

I have read through this a couple of times and I hope I didn't miss this. Will you be offering intake manifolds for your heads? I know with some searching tunnel port intakes can be found but having one or two choices ( my vote is for the single plane dual four C7OE-9424-A) would make this an easier for guys to make the purchase, in my opinion. I would also wonder if Jays intake adapter would open up some choices for other "tops" too??

We will develop and offer manifolds after the heads release.  The first version will likely be a single plane 2x4. 

I know Ford made at least 4 different manifolds for the tunnel port - 2x4 single plane, 2x4 dual plane, single plane 1x4 with 4150 flange, and single plane 1x4 for a dominator.

[pbf777]

   

I know Ford made at least 4 different manifolds for the tunnel port - 2x4 single plane, 2x4 dual plane, single plane 1x4 with 4150 flange, and single plane 1x4 for a dominator.

     Also, a rather rare single four (4150 flange) dual plane.   

     B.T.W. Was the single plane 1x4 Dominator unit available as cast, or rather solely a fabrication?  They seem to be somewhat prolific with some looking to be obviously welded fabrications, but others if so have been quite well finished (as is the one we have), if only to the point of appearing to be hastefully modified casting boxes?     

     Scott.

[Henrysnephew]

I have an "as cast" single Dominator flange t/p unit that's out for powdercoat right now.  Will be running an old L-4575 1050 on it later this year.  Randy M

[PLemoine]

I currently have 2 4150 flanged single plane intakes, a 4500 flanged single plane intake. a 4150 flanged dual plane intake, a 2 4V dual plane intake, an Algon FI intake, and Jay Browns TP adapter. Just waiting on the heads.

[mbrunson427]

I currently have 2 4150 flanged single plane intakes, a 4500 flanged single plane intake. a 4150 flanged dual plane intake, a 2 4V dual plane intake, an Algon FI intake, and Jay Browns TP adapter. Just waiting on the heads.

 Can you post or send a picture of a dual plane single 4 barrel intake? I can't say I have ever seen one.

[thatdarncat]

I currently have 2 4150 flanged single plane intakes, a 4500 flanged single plane intake. a 4150 flanged dual plane intake, a 2 4V dual plane intake, an Algon FI intake, and Jay Browns TP adapter. Just waiting on the heads.

 Can you post or send a picture of a dual plane single 4 barrel intake? I can't say I have ever seen one.

Not mine, picture from the old FE Forum, maybe the owner is here. I’ve seen pictures of 3 or 4 different ones of this same intake, but they’re definitely one of the rarest of the Ford Tunnel Port intakes.

[PLemoine]

Only 3 in existence I’ve been told. I have pictures of my but the pic format is not acceptable.

[pbf777]

     I always wonder, who really knows how many of anything are actually in existence, anywhere and everywhere?     

     But one went across ebay a two (?) years ago, I think if I remember right, it bid to something in the mid $4000.00 range; and although I might have helped run it up, I was in the end, out bid.     

     Scott.

[Gregwill16]

You are close on the ebay one. It was advertised as NOS and brought $4277.27 plus $46.85 shipping. A couple bidders wanted it real bad.

[Henrysnephew]

Mr Cushman, paging Mr Cushman ..... (lol).  Randy M

[ntheogen]

Cushman doesn't have one, and if I find one first, I will NEVER let him forget it.  Not only are they the rarest TP intake, they are without a doubt one of rarest Ford intakes period, quite possibly the top of that list. Jay sent me a picture of one not to long ago, so they are out there, in the wild, hidden amongst the tall grass, waiting to be found....

[WConley]

Not mine, picture from the old FE Forum, maybe the owner is here. I’ve seen pictures of 3 or 4 different ones of this same intake, but they’re definitely one of the rarest of the Ford Tunnel Port intakes.

Kevin's picture seems to show a lot of hand scraping of the molds (or the pattern being cobbled together from a couple of other intakes).  That probably means one very limited run for a very special reason...

[pbf777]

You are close on the ebay one. It was advertised as NOS and brought $4277.27 plus $46.85 shipping. A couple bidders wanted it real bad.

     Yeah, I'm the guy that injected the sevens into the bidding!     

     But he had me covered in the end!   

     But, then looking at the bright side,.............at least I didn't need an appointment at the proctologist the following day!     

     Scott.

[cammerfe]

As I said up above, I got a TP upper end from the LeMans trials. Many years later, When I was working with Jim Dove, I borrowed three manifolds from him, all factory pieces. I got a single plane dual quad and both single carb manifolds as well. With help from  Wayne Kuchtyn at Headwinds Porting, we ran all four manifolds over his Superflow, and I reported the results in the series I did for Mustang Illustrated.

I can, therefore, tell you that all four specimens we played with were quite well balanced from one cylinder to another. As you might expect the numbers were a bit larger for the single planes. But we were well pleased with what we found. Since having a fairly serious street machine was the goal, we used the dual plane on his car, and he used a 4.44 DL in the rear. The combo provided outstanding torque at all times. We used, ultimately, a pair of Holley throttle body EFIs instead of the 652s that we got originally.

KS

[Henrysnephew]

As Mr. Conley has stated above, the 1x4 dual plane casting looks very much a (nearly) one off exercise.  To me it looks like an sohc/tunnel port hybrid.  Is it possible that Dove had the resources and skillset necessary to do that level of mold development?  Randy M

[427FeWedge]

The one in the picture is mine. It has a hand stamped SK 001$. I know they made more than 3, including the Ebay one I know of 5. Mine definitely has a some what crude finish to it compared to most Ford OEM intakes. I agree that it looks similar  to the 1X4 SOHC.
I ran mine on my 496 and found it to be 50 hp off from the single plane 1x4. I think it would be a good intake for a 454 combo,
may give it a shot on a iron headed 482 I am thinking doing later this year.

Rob

[428kidd]

Very cool Rob! 001that is awesome!

[PLemoine]

My intake has the same buggered runners on the same two ports as the one pictured.

[cammerfe]

As Mr. Conley has stated above, the 1x4 dual plane casting looks very much a (nearly) one off exercise.  To me it looks like an sohc/tunnel port hybrid.  Is it possible that Dove had the resources and skillset necessary to do that level of mold development?  Randy M

Yes he did. He had, for example, a very large pole barn directly adjacent to his house. There was a second story enclosed overpass from his bedroom to the upper level of the pole barn. He not only had extensive design space there, he was complete with a Superflow. He'd get an idea and go for several days without sleep while chasing it. There were stacks of one -of-a-kind castings there that had started out as an idea in his head.

KS

[GJCAT427]

OK guys, I managed to get into the home shop this morning. I have in my collection 2 TP manifolds and 2 sets of heads. 1 manifold is a 4150 single plane 4bbl  carbed unit. This is on my new TP going in my 63 fastback. The other manifold is a dual 4150 single plane  that resides on the shelf for now. I had at one point a single plane Dominator manifold that I sold several yrs ago, wish I hadn`t sold it now. I do have one of Jay`s adapters with a hand built tunnel ram, waiting to see how the single 4bbl works out on the new motor.  When I sold the single 4 single plane Dominator, the guy who got it said it was reworked for the carb, I told him it was not, You could see the mold marks and I  looked inside the throat and it didn`t have a weld line in it. So if it was patterned off the other style it was a good job of factory rework on the molds.

[pbf777]

.............I  looked inside the throat and it didn`t have a weld line in it.

     Not disputing you at all;  I just wanted to say that we have executed several Dominator conversions of Edelbrock Victor Jr. 302 intakes, and when we've finished with the welding, porting/blending, patterning and finish abrasive blasting with the re-machining, you'd be hard pressed to determine that it wasn't as received from Edelbrock.     

     Scott.

[gt350hr]

Cushman doesn't have one, and if I find one first, I will NEVER let him forget it.  Not only are they the rarest TP intake, they are without a doubt one of rarest Ford intakes period, quite possibly the top of that list. Jay sent me a picture of one not to long ago, so they are out there, in the wild, hidden amongst the tall grass, waiting to be found....

        Jack ,
      The Epay manifold is out here in So Cal. A friend of mine bought it and will not let it go. Typical Ford experimental manifold casting quantity was 6 pcs minimum. This information came from a well known retired Ford "paper signer" heavily involved with the prototype stuff. I have found it to be true in many cases over the years.
       Randy

[cammerfe]

Has there ever been any experimenting with push rod passage shapes?

At one time when I was writing for Super Ford Magazine, Jim Dove and I had a lengthy discussion regarding 'modern' TPs. While mulling over the idea I had discussions with Mose Noland and others who had been involved with both the FE TPs and later, the Trans-Am small block iterations.

Jim was game to do about anything. The Ford guys told me that the idea of reshaping the PR tube, using various protrusions in the runners and other such ideas had produced absolutely nothing of benefit---ON THE INTAKE side. I was advised to pay attention to the exhaust.

The end result was a set of Dove TP heads with the FoMoCo intake lay-out and Dove's 'Type Two' exhaust runners. The exhaust side was changed so radically that the head lost most of the FE identifying characteristics. The runners were raised, spread further apart, and reshaped.

Jim's design had the angle of the exhaust runner re-done to such an extent that the runner opening was markedly 'up', almost pointing at the edge of the hood when bolted to a block in the car. The exhaust port shape had one lower corner filled-in quite significantly.

The heads went on Brother Lon's '67 Mustang/427 SO. In order to have room for the necessary custom headers, we removed the spring towers entirely. Coil-overs and tubular suspension arms out in the wheel-well took over. We also lowered the attachment points for the upper arms significantly and shortened the arms so that the attachment points moved outboard. It was also necessary to redo the steering shaft and replace the (bulky) rag joint with a Borgeson universal.

We worked with Holley to be able to use a pair of their TB EFI units on the factory dual-plane TP manifold. Worked a charm.

The project was spelled-out in a series I wrote for SFM, and the car was featured on the cover.

Lon ultimately sold the car. The new owner lives in New Zealand.

KS

[BigBlueOvalFan]

Wondering if these Alum TP heads have been produced as of yet or an idea of when they might be available ?  You can put me down for 4 sets of heads, 2 stock version and 2 max effort versions.

[gt350hr]

      Ford Experimental Engine Engineering ( in conjunction with H&M) made made different push rod tube configurations ( airfoil and ovals) in an attempt to make more HP. I know of one variation that used "O" ring seals ( didn't work) on the pushrod for obvious reasons. None of the "odd " tubes showed power on the dyno despite "some" airflow gains.

[frnkeore]

With today's aerodynamic technology, I think it would be a different story and if the TP had remained in production, more than two years, I believe that Ford would have found the path to much better air flow.

I think there is much more to be had with the TP port, especially with a 4 3/8 bore and 480+ engines.

The basic Ford port tech in those days, was bigger is better but, Bill Elliott, in the '80's, with his head porters work on the 351 (smaller valves and ports), showed that to be wrong.

With the PR tube and extensions to it, you can completely control the air flow, after the PR. There is power to be had!

[Dumpling]

Ford offered a tunnel port package for the Windsor in the 90s.
Required a unique block.

Then they abruptly pulled it from the market and bought back parts that they had delivered.

Why the special block, and what other development work was done for that package?

[Eken1]

So what were the airflow and power gains of the 351 tunnelport effort over the 302 tunnelport?  Perhaps that data could be extrapolated to potential gains on the FE.  The bragging rights and eye appeal of owning a tunnelport would be nice, but would gains justify converting over?

[Katz427]

Randy or others may have the inside scoop on the NASCAR tunnel port 351, but as I remember it was Junior Johnson who had his people, design the tunnel port head for the 351. I do not believe that it was ever accepted, for competition.

[jbamber]

Wondering if these Alum TP heads have been produced as of yet or an idea of when they might be available ?  You can put me down for 4 sets of heads, 2 stock version and 2 max effort versions.

We are targeting the fall time for availability.  At this point, we can't be specific - foundries are backed up, and difficult to predict.

[Chrisss31]

Ford offered a tunnel port package for the Windsor in the 90s.
Required a unique block.

Then they abruptly pulled it from the market and bought back parts that they had delivered.

Why the special block, and what other development work was done for that package?

I wonder why they wanted them back so bad.

[482supersnake]

I think Jay Cushman mike have a couple of sets of the Nascar Windsor tunnel ports and possibly a complete engine.

[Dumpling]

I wonder why they wanted them back so bad.

They didn't release all the unique parts at once. Camshaft, then intake, then blocks, then heads.  Midway through their release schedule they decided to pull the project. Then requested the return of parts they had shipped.

Always wondered what the backstory was....

[frnkeore]

Maybe they didn't want them out running the 351c 

[mbrunson427]

Jim was game to do about anything. The Ford guys told me that the idea of reshaping the PR tube, using various protrusions in the runners and other such ideas had produced absolutely nothing of benefit---ON THE INTAKE side. I was advised to pay attention to the exhaust.

The end result was a set of Dove TP heads with the FoMoCo intake lay-out and Dove's 'Type Two' exhaust runners. The exhaust side was changed so radically that the head lost most of the FE identifying characteristics. The runners were raised, spread further apart, and reshaped.

Jim's design had the angle of the exhaust runner re-done to such an extent that the runner opening was markedly 'up', almost pointing at the edge of the hood when bolted to a block in the car. The exhaust port shape had one lower corner filled-in quite significantly.
KS

I think these may be the heads you're describing? I pulled these down out of the attic this weekend out of curiosity. The exhaust has been significantly worked over and would require a custom made set of headers because the exhaust runners are directly in-line with the exhaust valves. Probably as straight of shot as you can make with the exhaust.

[gt350hr]

I wonder why they wanted them back so bad.

They didn't release all the unique parts at once. Camshaft, then intake, then blocks, then heads.  Midway through their release schedule they decided to pull the project. Then requested the return of parts they had shipped.

Always wondered what the backstory was....

       The head used "paired" exhaust valves ( #2 and 3 being next to each other ) with the 10 ( only) head bolts caused head gasket failures. Yes Jay Cushman bought out the left over JR Johnson stuff and there are other heads . blocks out there as well.  Cams have an odd lobe layout for the alternative valve locations. After initial approval , Nascar didn't accept the engine combination .
     Randy

[Dumpling]

I wonder why they wanted them back so bad.

They didn't release all the unique parts at once. Camshaft, then intake, then blocks, then heads.  Midway through their release schedule they decided to pull the project. Then requested the return of parts they had shipped.

Always wondered what the backstory was....

       The head used "paired" exhaust valves ( #2 and 3 being next to each other ) with the 10 ( only) head bolts caused head gasket failures. Yes Jay Cushman bought out the left over JR Johnson stuff and there are other heads . blocks out there as well.  Cams have an odd lobe layout for the alternative valve locations. After initial approval , Nascar didn't accept the engine combination .
     Randy

Sounds like I dodged a bullet.

Thanks

...and now I know...

[cammerfe]

Jim was game to do about anything. The Ford guys told me that the idea of reshaping the PR tube, using various protrusions in the runners and other such ideas had produced absolutely nothing of benefit---ON THE INTAKE side. I was advised to pay attention to the exhaust.

The end result was a set of Dove TP heads with the FoMoCo intake lay-out and Dove's 'Type Two' exhaust runners. The exhaust side was changed so radically that the head lost most of the FE identifying characteristics. The runners were raised, spread further apart, and reshaped.

Jim's design had the angle of the exhaust runner re-done to such an extent that the runner opening was markedly 'up', almost pointing at the edge of the hood when bolted to a block in the car. The exhaust port shape had one lower corner filled-in quite significantly.
KS

I think these may be the heads you're describing? I pulled these down out of the attic this weekend out of curiosity. The exhaust has been significantly worked over and would require a custom made set of headers because the exhaust runners are directly in-line with the exhaust valves. Probably as straight of shot as you can make with the exhaust.

It's been some years since I actually had my hands on the heads Jim made up for us, and your photos don't let us look directly into the exhaust ports. My memory says the external view of the exhaust runners isn't exactly the same as what I remember but it is quite close. Very like revisiting an old friend.

KS

[Keith Stevens]

Are the new TP heads going to be set up like the Edelbrocks so there is no cylinder interference with a minimum of the 4.080 bore?