440 Mopar 4.350 x 3.750

stock crank , Eagle rods, JE F/T piston

10.5:1 Compression

Comp 23-713-9 H/R cam 242/248 .549/.544 @ 106

TFS Mopar 240 cc heads

TFS-16094-16 springs

Comp 1621-16 rockers

Edelbrock Victor intake

Hooker 1/78 header w/ 3" Flowmasters

Demon 830

What I've found with the fel-pro paper gaskets is that the "too wide" port spacing is really only caused by one pair of ports being in the "wrong" place.
If you measure from the edge of the inner bolt holes to the edge of the adjacent intake port there is usually a difference of about .040-.050 between the two measurements.
Using a std port EZ head, which has CNC'd port openings, if you line up the bolt holes of the gasket with the holes in the head, one pair of ports line up good, the other pair are off(too wide). Flip the gasket end for end, and the opposite pair of ports line up.
On one of these heads at least, the pair of ports on the gasket that are closer to the bolt holes are the ones that line up correctly with the ports on the head(when visually centering the gasket by lining up all 4 bolt holes).

thanks,that what I was looking for.

I agree. And they probably did just that.
I had a chance to look at a couple things this afternoon.
The measurement from the edge of the inner bolt hole to the edge of the port opening on the tin valley pan gasket is .950, for both sets of holes.
The paper gaskets are usually .970-.980 on one end and .930-.940 on the other. So, the spread of the ports is pretty much the same as the valley pan, the bolts holes are just shifted slightly.
The only unmolested aftermarket std port head I have here at the moment is an EZ.
Both the std valley pan and the paper gaskets have the port openings slightly too far apart to really fit "right" on that head. Fwiw, the std port Indy gaskets are also slightly too wide, but not as bad as the fel-pro. The Indy mw gasket centers up really well on this head though.

Of course none of that has anything to do with how any of that fits the TF heads.

So, I guess the question is....... What to do about that poor port alignment of the victor intake.
And, if it gets fixed, how much difference will it really make?
I wish they would offer some of those more race oriented manifolds with undersized port openings so they could be port matched to the heads easier.

Where did you get that info? That's not quite what is quoted in HR mag.
"Our new big-block Chrysler heads flow 334 cfm on the intake side, and 262 cfm on the exhaust side. For testing purposes, we built a .030-over 440 with 10.5:1 compression and a 241/246-at-.050 camshaft," Mike explains. "On the dyno, this combo made 620 horsepower on pump gas. We feel it represents the type of combination many Mopar guys build, and obviously there's the potential for these heads to support even more power by running more cubic inches and a bigger cam."
I'm not saying you are wrong, just curious about the source of that data. Thanks, Steve

I found 60 rwhp on a 383 sbc by fixing the bad intake to head relationship so that I could tune the efi properly.. On that motor, every port had step, overhang and mismatch, it caused a lot of weird air flow problems that really upset the tuning and made the engine feel flat.

Mismatch is always part of the expectation from product to product.
The part that caught my attention is the bolt hole plane centerline to port plane centerline, those ports are lower with the TF head when compared to production heads - either street oem production or max wedge. That isn't the hot set up for short side at the valve pocket. I haven't looked at any flow numbers on these other than the ones in this thread, but I suspect that may be why these things go dead at 500 - 550 lift in CFM numbers, I'm not trying to be critical, just an observation.....

I suppose to keep it a "bolt on replacement type" head and to get bigger CFM numbers the centerline had to drop some, but also keep in mind that bigger CFM numbers alone dont automatically mean more HP.

Links to dyno (with build info) and flow details provided on Summit Racing site:

Dyno Info

Flow Info


Link to Installation Instructions

Install Instructions

I perused the new heads at B Dartman's house the other night but came away confused...

I'm not sure if he's building an engine for a car or an aircraft?!

It looked to me from the pic of the gasket on the head that the ports were pretty "correct" height wise on the TF head, and that the mismatch on the manifold was really about the manifold.
My experience has been that the Edelbrock Victor intakes for BB Mopars usually have the ports a little on the "high" side. Though I haven't seen the alignment be as far off as the one Andy is using.
That's going to take some welding or Belzona to get it right, without making the head "bigger".

[/quote]

I perused the new heads at B Dartman's house the other night but came away confused...

I'm not sure if he's building an engine for a car or an aircraft?! [/quote]

Dunno - There may have been a recent delivery...

Funny part is that with the holiday's they showed up in a U-Haul Truck (FexEd) LOL.

Said it before - but being a novice, the advice in this thread is greatly appreciated...

I perused the new heads at B Dartman's house the other night but came away confused...

I'm not sure if he's building an engine for a car or an aircraft?! [/quote]

Dunno - There may have been a recent delivery...

Funny part is that with the holiday's they showed up in a U-Haul Truck (FexEd) LOL.

Said it before - but being a novice, the advice in this thread is greatly appreciated...



[/quote]How long did it take to get them once the order was put in?

- Ordered 11/23/15 when Summit had the 10% sale - back ordered
- Delivered 12/18/15

Note: Hats off to Trick Flow - They called and left a message at the house indicating the date their castings were due it - how long they'd take to machine, assemble and estimated ship date (Kept customer informed).

I'd be pretty surprised if those heads aren't "flying off the shelves".

Now I'm curious about what the next incarnation of these will be from TF?

put my order in 12/1 thru summit also, with a due date of 1/9/16, they also called with the same info, that was a nice touch with the message to keep us informed.

Thanks for that. It looks like they ran a bunch of different cams or no one knows what they ran. The specs on the TF cam are posted as 234°/247°@ .050" .600"/.600" (1.7:1 rockers?) 108°LSA. It does look like they stepped up on the heads regardless of the minor differences in cam specs. Now to for some more detailed results from the builders that still grace us with their presence.

They will have the MW version available mid summer 2016

NOW we`re talkin..............