Moparts
Indybrocks vs. W2's
Considering ported Indybrocks or W2's for my next road race style smallblock build .Not sure what c.i. yet but probably a 360 or small stroker with a max rpm of about 7200.Is this a no brainer,or what are the pros and cons.Any thoughts?
thanx
justin
Posted By: S/ST 3040
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 03:57 PM
Pros:
1. Edelbrocks are lighter (handling)
2. Edelbrocks have less CSA (important for accellerating from the corners)
3. Requires fewer specialty component (intake, headers)
4. Easier to fix after head damage
Cons:
1. Have to use INDY's rocker arms
2.
Posted By: gmachinedart1
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 04:11 PM
Peak hp potential,pretty close between the two?Do the indy rockers hold up well,are there geometry issues?
thanx
justin
Posted By: S/ST 3040
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 04:20 PM
Peak HP would go to the W-2, without question.......but, means very little on a road
course with tight bends that require some mid-range power to get it off the corner.
I know the INDY rockers will work fine but, have no first-hand knowledge of geometry problems.
I'm just saying, as far as I know, it's the only rocker arm compatable with the INDY-brock heads.
Do you plan on running a solid roller cam, or FT?
I like the edelbrock heads for road race because as mentioned there are alot of pro's, plus the valvetrain is less likely to be a problem over the highly offset W2 stuff.
How much power do you want/need? What are the rpm ranges you'll run (lowest and highest)?
How heavy is this car? I've seen short stroke engines kill bigger stroke stuff if done right.
Posted By: patrick
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 06:08 PM
most pro porters only see 10-15 CFM of additional peak flow with the indybrocks, IIRC. personally, I'd go max ported standard eddies, or maybe mag eddies for the smaller chamber and cheaper rocker alternatives.
if I were looking for a relocated pushrod aluminum head, I think I'd go large port commandos. fully ported they're about as good as W2's, and have a small 53cc or so chamber.
Posted By: B3422W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 06:54 PM
Quote:
most pro porters only see 10-15 CFM of additional peak flow with the indybrocks, IIRC. personally, I'd go max ported standard eddies, or maybe mag eddies for the smaller chamber and cheaper rocker alternatives.
if I were looking for a relocated pushrod aluminum head, I think I'd go large port commandos. fully ported they're about as good as W2's, and have a small 53cc or so chamber.
Good info...but, the last thing i would do is go with the large port commando's, they are expensive, need guide work,(3/8) and from what i have seen arent even"about as good" as a W2. I would say a w2 is "about as good" as a w5 though.The large port commando's seem only marginally better than an edddie, at way more cost.
For what this guy seems to want to do, cost, availability, etc, standard eddies seem the way to go. 
Posted By: RyanJ
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 06:55 PM
Don't see any reason why can't put big block std offset rockers on the INDYBrocks. I'm 100% positive my PRW Stainless bushed Big Block rockers would work on an INDYbrock on the ICH SB shafts.
Road Race car I'd think the iron head weight would be big disadvantage.
Power wise I don't see big difference between a fully ported INDYBrock or a set of W2's. W2 has little more potential depending on version. I know which one is easily repairable & which one is'nt..... also know which one is crack prone & which one is'nt.....
There isn't much extra flow available removing the pushrod pinch, but there is power available by doing this!
You help reduce the smallest area in the entire intake tract, and thereby you help keep inertia up during the intake cycle.
It helps topend HP and HP past HP peak, but I've also seen it add TQ below and above TQ peak!
For a true 7200rpm, I would use the Indybrock's hands down.
Posted By: S/ST 3040
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 07:05 PM
Brian!
That's more than anybody needs to know.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 09:40 PM
Quote:
Pros:
1. Edelbrocks are lighter (handling)
2. Edelbrocks have less CSA (important for accellerating from the corners)
3. Requires fewer specialty component (intake, headers)
4. Easier to fix after head damage
Cons:
1. Have to use INDY's rocker arms
I believe you can use any big block rocker arm set with the Indybrock heads. At least that is the way I understood it. If so then that means the rocker arms are very easy to find since anything from Crane nodulars to Harlands to RAS rockers should bolt on there. Maybe someone on here knows for sure?
Posted By: RyanJ
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 10:33 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Pros:
1. Edelbrocks are lighter (handling)
2. Edelbrocks have less CSA (important for accellerating from the corners)
3. Requires fewer specialty component (intake, headers)
4. Easier to fix after head damage
Cons:
1. Have to use INDY's rocker arms
I believe you can use any big block rocker arm set with the Indybrock heads. At least that is the way I understood it. If so then that means the rocker arms are very easy to find since anything from Crane nodulars to Harlands to RAS rockers should bolt on there. Maybe someone on here knows for sure?
Look 3 posts up from yours LOL. The INDYBrock SB heads just use the INDY SR rocker arms, which are basically stock big block rockers, so yes pretty much any stock offset BB rocker would work. May have to fudge around with spacing & side clearance etc but should'nt be a big deal.
Posted By: S/ST 3040
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/27/09 10:57 PM
I knew INDY used a BB rocker from one of their own heads
but, was unaware it was standard BB offset.
Posted By: DaKuda
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 12:02 AM
The crane Gold rockers work great on the Indybrocks
Here they are with the Indy SR rockers they supply.
.JPG "5445258-ENGINE340RaceEngines(28).JPG")
Posted By: dusturbd340W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 12:11 AM
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
Posted By: AndyF
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 12:16 AM
So those numbers aren't a ton higher than the ported Edelbrock heads but I'm guessing that the increased CSA makes the port work better on the big inch motors?
Posted By: B3422W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 01:42 PM
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do 
Posted By: S/ST 3040
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 02:15 PM
Quote:
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do
Don............the 
never gets old, does it? 
Posted By: dusturbd340W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 09:34 PM
Quote:
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do
Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.
Posted By: RyanJ
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 11:20 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do
Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.
His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.
Posted By: dusturbd340W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 11:36 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do
Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.
His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.
the timeslip is all that matters so far I am happy with what these heads are doing considering the roller is only 246/254@ 50 and only .592 lift and they have run 6.52 @ 106 in a 3000 lb car in terrible air I think that pretty good for what they are.
Posted By: Quicktree
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 11:38 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do
Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.
His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.
the timeslip is all that matters so far I am happy with what these heads are doing considering the roller is only 246/254@ 50 and only .592 lift and they have run 6.52 @ 106 in a 3000 lb car in terrible air I think that pretty good for what they are.
and I bet it will go faster after a little more tunning and better air.
Posted By: dusturbd340W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/28/09 11:43 PM
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
wow, i think i should get a set of those, they flow better than my w5's do
Just stating what is written on my flow sheet.I would think a set of GOOD w5's should flow more than 313.
His heads do flow more than 313 on my bench...... & his 9.80 ET's suggest they make more power than a typical INDYbrock & the timeslip, unlike #'s on a flowbench are all that matters.
the timeslip is all that matters so far I am happy with what these heads are doing considering the roller is only 246/254@ 50 and only .592 lift and they have run 6.52 @ 106 in a 3000 lb car in terrible air I think that pretty good for what they are.
and I bet it will go faster after a little more tunning and better air.
I have no doubt there is more in it I cant wait for some good
Posted By: dartman366
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 12:46 AM
Quote:
my CNC'D Indybrocks flow 302@ .550 and 313@ .700 on Ryan's bench and seem to be making pretty good steam on my 416 considering the baby roller I have in the motor so far they have pushed my ride of 3000 lbs to 6.50 @ 105 in the 1/8 in terrible air of 95deg 90% humidity with rain on the horizon.
my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's pull those number's.
Posted By: RyanJ
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 02:07 AM
Quote:
my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's
LOL!
To be honest they all SUCK, everyone should have a set of INDY 360 series heads on There, that ought to stir the pot nicely 
You can go fast with anything if the combo is right.... these arguments over which head is better than this one is funny. They all have Pro's & they all have Con's.
Posted By: jcc
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 03:11 AM
And I am suprised by the comments on low end grunt, I suspect it is difficult enough with your chassis to put down much more power exiting turns, especially when most competitive passing is at the other end under braking, I am currently having built a stroker track day motor with non ported Indy brocks, which I like, but I would think any iron head is a dead in the water idea, I think Indy 360's are the best bet for your expectations and where you are likely headed
(pun intended)
Posted By: dusturbd340W5
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 03:24 AM
Quote:
Quote:
my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's
LOL!
To be honest they all SUCK, everyone should have a set of INDY 360 series heads on There, that ought to stir the pot nicely
You can go fast with anything if the combo is right.... these arguments over which head is better than this one is funny. They all have Pro's & they all have Con's.
They all suck I was never saying one being better than another just stating what mine where doing and if I had had the extra money at the time I got my Indybrock's I would have gotten some Indy 360's
Posted By: gmachinedart1
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 04:56 AM
Quote:
Do you plan on running a solid roller cam, or FT?
I like the edelbrock heads for road race because as mentioned there are alot of pro's, plus the valvetrain is less likely to be a problem over the highly offset W2 stuff.
How much power do you want/need? What are the rpm ranges you'll run (lowest and highest)?
How heavy is this car? I've seen short stroke engines kill bigger stroke stuff if done right.
I must state that the car(70 dart) is not an all out road race car but really a 3400lb(w/driver)street car that is used for track days and autocrossed.I would like to try a solid roller if it will be reliable,but if its not in budget a solid f/t will do.I guess an honest 500hp on pump gas would suffice.Rpm range would prob be 1200-7200.I dont know if it would be a step backwards(from the current 360)but I might consider doing a 340 with the shorter stroke and rpm potential.
thanx
justin
The only way to make a short stroke engine work in a road race app. is throw gear at it. Probably not a very good street car that way.
500HP is not too hard, but wanting 7200rpm means you either need to stay with a 360, and use edelbrock heads or Indy's smaller 210cc head, or maybe go to a 340 style block and use a 3.79 crank and Indy's 230cc head.
If you go with a 4" crank, you'll need a 230 Indy head min. to get that rpm range but you'll make way more than 500HP. Not to mention cost will be alot higher with the Indy stuff.
If it were me, I would stick to the 360, and use edelbrock magnum heads with a FT cam and 1.7 rockers to get some lift at the valve.
Those heads need to be ported to make 500HP, but with 10.3:1 and the right carb (950HP) I think 500HP is easily doable.
I would also try to use lightweight stuff like Scat rods, light pistons, and a lightweight crank if you can afford it. The engine will act like it has alot more TQ than it really does helping with a taller gear that's more street friendly.
Posted By: dartman366
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 04:57 PM
Quote:
Quote:
my marginally better than a edelbrock set of Lg Port Commando's
LOL!
To be honest they all SUCK, everyone should have a set of INDY 360 series heads on There, that ought to stir the pot nicely
You can go fast with anything if the combo is right.... these arguments over which head is better than this one is funny. They all have Pro's & they all have Con's.
I thought that might tickle your funny bone.
Posted By: DaKuda
Re: Indybrocks vs. W2's - 08/29/09 09:08 PM
hey brian, what ever came of the smallblock roller lifters that didnt need block grinding to install? back to subject now.
Quote:
hey brian, what ever came of the smallblock roller lifters that didnt need block grinding to install? back to subject now.
Not sure what you mean...? I have them in stock, and more in Mi.
We all so stock the lifters that have the link-bar on the inside for small blocks and have a tall upper body big block roller lifter for pushrod oiling.
Quote:
We all so stock the lifters that have the link-bar on the inside for small blocks and have a tall upper body big block roller lifter for pushrod oiling.
Yes Jimmy told me. He's a great guy to deal with...busy guy too!! LOL