Posted By: 67_Satellite
trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 01:58 AM
http://i355.photobucket.com/albums/r461/FriedDonuts/port%20mold_zpsbotjhqo8.jpg Made some port molds earlier this winter of my performer R.P.M. port and Bubby 440'S new trick flow 240 port. Mine have been mildly ported and are 220c.c. vs. I think 215 c.c. stock.Looks like most of the increased area is in an improved bowl area. Minimum cross section at the pinch is the same.Edelbrock on top t.f. on bottom.
Posted By: 67_Satellite
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 02:04 AM
If someone more computer savvy than I wants to convert the links to pics, feel free to do so.We speculated that the 270 head would probably just stick a max wedge inlet on the intake manifold side of the port.
Posted By: BradH
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 02:32 PM
Going by the TF CSA measurements in the picture above, that is a much tighter "pinch" in the flow path than I expected.
Now I'm wondering how much of this still exists in their new 270 MW head. Trick Flow's decision not to use offset intake rockers certainly limits the capability to address this.
Posted By: RAMM
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 03:08 PM
Seriouslt considering these heads for this years EMC build. Now I'm not so sure I see anything worth it. I've seen 2 builds, 1 local to me that @ 446 cubes struggled to make 600HP. I'm thinking ported E-heads are probably just as good and a bit cheaper. J.Rob
Posted By: LaRoy Engines
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 04:05 PM
I'd like to see you go with the Trick Flow but the RPM heads are capable of some pretty remarkable performance.
Posted By: fast68plymouth
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 06:38 PM
I might be way out in left field, but I kinda feel like the smaller exhaust valve, along with the smallish exhaust port on the TF head is not really the hot ticket for big power.
Posted By: Roughbird72
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 08:35 PM
Btw, on 67_Satellite's bench the ootb flow numbers on 1 chamber.
Intake 319.3 @ .650
Exhaust 263.4 @ .650
He did check an intake on another chamber and I believe it was slightly more than 320.
Posted By: fast68plymouth
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 09:13 PM
Btw, on 67_Satellite's bench the ootb flow numbers on 1 chamber.
Intake 319.3 @ .650
Exhaust 263.4 @ .650
He did check an intake on another chamber and I believe it was slightly more than 320.
I assume the exhaust number was achieved using some sort of flow tube.
Posted By: 67_Satellite
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 09:59 PM
Yes,it was.About 1.875" X 8" long.
Posted By: BradH
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/27/17 11:00 PM
What did you use to make those port molds? They came out really well.
Posted By: KOS
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/28/17 12:19 AM
how did the eddy compare in flow???
Posted By: 67_Satellite
Re: trick flow 240 VS. Perf. r.p.m. port molds. - 02/28/17 02:50 AM
OOMOO 30 is the silicone compound I got off of ebay to make the molds.Two parts mix 50/50. There is also a spray on mold release agent, which I highly suspect is silicone lube spray in a $9 can. It takes some force to remove it from the port. I found that by sticking a large Sharpie 3/4 of the way down the middle of the intake gasket side to create a void,the rubber could "collapse" partially and ease removal.
The Edelbrock heads maxed out at 305 c.f.m. at .500" and stayed flat after that. They have a 2.200 valve with a 30 deg. seat. The goal was to maximize low and mid flow. Pushrod pinch has been opened and they got a general smoothing and straightening treatment. O.O.T.B. flow numbers were in the high 280's,right about the same as Edelbrocks advertised numbers.
