Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
#2416144
12/10/17 01:30 PM
12/10/17 01:30 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051 The Great White North
RAMM
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051
The Great White North
|
I wanted to quit derailing Brad's post .
Serious question. If we are limited to a standard port configuration how much power is a Victor head worth? +/-? Are the raised exhaust ports worth anything when paired with the standard intake port size? I think it is probably 25-35 hp at best and I'm being generous. All thoughts are welcome. J.Rob
2009 PHR\EMC Competitor 2010 PHR\EMC Competitor 2011 PHR\EMC Competitor 2012 PHR\EMC Competitor 2013 PHR\EMC Competitor 2014 HotRod/EMC Competitor 2015 HotRod/EMC NoShow 2016 HotRod/EMC 3rd place SPEC Bigblock 2018 HotRod/EMC 7th place G3
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: RAMM]
#2416180
12/10/17 02:16 PM
12/10/17 02:16 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160 Texas
dannysbee
master
|
master
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,160
Texas
|
The sr Indy head in standard ports were generally dogs in most applications I saw over the years.
Getting old just means you were smarter than some and luckier than others.
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: AndyF]
#2416185
12/10/17 02:33 PM
12/10/17 02:33 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807 Mopar Country, Mi
ccdave
The Ultimate
|
The Ultimate
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807
Mopar Country, Mi
|
The other issue with your question is that it all depends on the size of the engine, the cam and the compression ratio. I'm pretty sure a guy could build two different engines to get two different results.
Exactly.
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: dannysbee]
#2416191
12/10/17 02:36 PM
12/10/17 02:36 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875 Weddington, N.C.
Streetwize
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 9,875
Weddington, N.C.
|
Maybe Edelbrock revised/ruined the Victors recipie (just thinking out loud here) to the smaller bowls because (human nature being what it is) maybe a high percentage of people (i.e., their 'real world' customers, not our tech saavy Moparts guys) bought big port Victors expecting "big" gains immediately bolted them onto their stock 8:1 440 shortblocks and maybe stuck in a 509 cam and now their cars would immediately have trouble falling out of a tree!!
By finishing them small they would still thoeretically work on a 440 at least comparable to/slightly (25hp) better than an OOTB RPM but then at least have the meat/potential to be ported? This way they could claim victory in the marketplace and still have the CNC market for the Real Race crowd?
What was the driving force behind the downward revision? Cost? or was it the "average Chevy mentality...bolt-on and go" customer?
Last edited by Streetwize; 12/10/17 02:38 PM.
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: RAMM]
#2416200
12/10/17 02:47 PM
12/10/17 02:47 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
There’s really only one way to know.
If it was only 25-35hp.......that’s still 25-35hp.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: RAMM]
#2416268
12/10/17 04:11 PM
12/10/17 04:11 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
To be clear, I’m talking about a set of ported Std port Victors(350cfm, like what are on BradH’s 452) vs ported RPM’s(something like a MCH CNC job), or the ootb TF240’s. I feel on a motor in the 650-700hp+ range the Victors would be the best of the three.
I can’t see the point of running the Victors ootb with the way the bowls are cast now
The arrival of the TF heads on the scene has certainly made a big impact on the std port head market.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: ccdave]
#2416306
12/10/17 04:59 PM
12/10/17 04:59 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051 The Great White North
RAMM
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051
The Great White North
|
I guess I'm a troll for trying to initiate a discussion? I'm guessing you are a Victor cylinder head owner venting some frustration over your choice. J.Rob
2009 PHR\EMC Competitor 2010 PHR\EMC Competitor 2011 PHR\EMC Competitor 2012 PHR\EMC Competitor 2013 PHR\EMC Competitor 2014 HotRod/EMC Competitor 2015 HotRod/EMC NoShow 2016 HotRod/EMC 3rd place SPEC Bigblock 2018 HotRod/EMC 7th place G3
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: RAMM]
#2416319
12/10/17 05:29 PM
12/10/17 05:29 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807 Mopar Country, Mi
ccdave
The Ultimate
|
The Ultimate
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807
Mopar Country, Mi
|
I guess I'm a troll for trying to initiate a discussion? I'm guessing you are a Victor cylinder head owner venting some frustration over your choice. J.Rob Your trying to say that Victor heads are very bad. This is old news. Everyone already knows this who cares. Next.
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: ccdave]
#2416327
12/10/17 05:39 PM
12/10/17 05:39 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972 Romeo MI
MR_P_BODY
Master
|
Master
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 52,972
Romeo MI
|
I guess I'm a troll for trying to initiate a discussion? I'm guessing you are a Victor cylinder head owner venting some frustration over your choice. J.Rob Your trying to say that Victor heads are very bad. This is old news. Everyone already knows this who cares. Next. They are trying to have a discussion.. if you dont want to be in it.. dont post
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: RAMM]
#2416331
12/10/17 05:50 PM
12/10/17 05:50 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
In ootb form, IMO the TF240 is the clear choice for builds where a std port opening is preferred and you’re looking for over like 550hp.
As has been discussed before, the primary determining factor for that at this point is the quality, flow..........and price.
If the heads all cost the same, the choice wouldn’t be as clear.........but they don’t, and it’s pretty difficult to approach the potential of the TF head for equivalent $$$.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: WO23Coronet]
#2416335
12/10/17 05:57 PM
12/10/17 05:57 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,499
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
What kind of cfm do porters get out of the std port heads? I know that’s not the end all be all but it’s a pretty good indicator The highest I’ve seen from a “true” std port head is around 350cfm........and that’s been with the Victor/Pro Comp heads. I haven’t done one in a long time, but I’ve had std port SR’s flowing in the 340’s. Actually, now that I think about it, I had some nicely ported std port EZ’s in the shop, done by Hughes, that had the transition in the roof filled in, and those went about 350 as well.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?i
[Re: MR_P_BODY]
#2416407
12/10/17 09:00 PM
12/10/17 09:00 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807 Mopar Country, Mi
ccdave
The Ultimate
|
The Ultimate
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,807
Mopar Country, Mi
|
[quote=ccdave] I guess I'm a troll for trying to initiate a discussion? I'm guessing you are a Victor cylinder head owner venting some frustration over your choice. J.Rob Your trying to say that Victor heads are very bad. This is old news. Everyone already knows this who cares. Next. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. You are right, but in this case I felt compelled to be a little crass. Sometimes people make comments without having all of the facts. When they do I think they should be called out.
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?i
[Re: ccdave]
#2416443
12/10/17 10:05 PM
12/10/17 10:05 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051 The Great White North
RAMM
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051
The Great White North
|
[quote=ccdave] I guess I'm a troll for trying to initiate a discussion? I'm guessing you are a Victor cylinder head owner venting some frustration over your choice. J.Rob Your trying to say that Victor heads are very bad. This is old news. Everyone already knows this who cares. Next. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother. You are right, but in this case I felt compelled to be a little crass. Sometimes people make comments without having all of the facts. When they do I think they should be called out. What facts am I missing? J.Rob
2009 PHR\EMC Competitor 2010 PHR\EMC Competitor 2011 PHR\EMC Competitor 2012 PHR\EMC Competitor 2013 PHR\EMC Competitor 2014 HotRod/EMC Competitor 2015 HotRod/EMC NoShow 2016 HotRod/EMC 3rd place SPEC Bigblock 2018 HotRod/EMC 7th place G3
|
|
|
Re: Standard port RPM/TF vs Standard port Victor-HP gain?
[Re: LaRoy Engines]
#2416445
12/10/17 10:07 PM
12/10/17 10:07 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051 The Great White North
RAMM
OP
super stock
|
OP
super stock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,051
The Great White North
|
I have dyno and flow tests with standard port, ported Victors, and OOTB TF240s on 440 engines, both with dual plane intakes. One a small solid roller and the other with a larger solid flat tappet. I will try to get the information organized and to you RAMM. Thankyou Jim, I am seriously interested, as I have never had eyes on a set of TF240's yet. J.Rob
2009 PHR\EMC Competitor 2010 PHR\EMC Competitor 2011 PHR\EMC Competitor 2012 PHR\EMC Competitor 2013 PHR\EMC Competitor 2014 HotRod/EMC Competitor 2015 HotRod/EMC NoShow 2016 HotRod/EMC 3rd place SPEC Bigblock 2018 HotRod/EMC 7th place G3
|
|
|
|
|