Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2172970
10/12/16 03:41 PM
10/12/16 03:41 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,200 Oregon
AndyF
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 31,200
Oregon
|
Since Andy will have both the TF 240 and 270 on hand, maybe if he's looking for something to test, he could do that very test. Swap only the heads and manifold and see just how it shakes out. That is the plan but no guarantee that it will actually happen. It takes a lot of time (and money) to do a back to back head swap on the dyno. I don't think the torque peak would move up a huge amount if the cam and carb stay the same. The torque peak could move up more if the cam is made bigger. At some point the engine might want bigger headers too. I think changing the head cross section by 25% starts a whole domino string.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2173074
10/12/16 06:54 PM
10/12/16 06:54 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490 Sydney,Australia
tex013
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490
Sydney,Australia
|
Here's my grey matter 3.2 prediction.....
On a "typical" 493/505/520 bracket or hot street type build, with normal compression ratios(10.0-13.5) and cam lift/duration(.550-.700 lift, 250-280 @.050) running a single plane manifold with a properly sized carb, and the proper sized headers for the application, the TQ peaks would be within 500rpm of each other if you changed ONLY the heads and intake manifold. Dwayne , what potential HP gain would think ? If say swapping out only the heads . Or would you maybe need to pick up some lift , 1.6 rocker change ? thanks Tex
New best ET 10.259@129.65 . New best MPH 130.32 Finally fitted a solid cam, stepped it up a bit more 3690lbs through the mufflers New World block 3780lbs 10.278@130.80 . Wowser 10.253@130.24 footbraking from 1500rpm Power by Tex's Automotive
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2173083
10/12/16 07:10 PM
10/12/16 07:10 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,531 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,531
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
I'm not going to speculate of how much power a set of heads I've never seen or tested would make. Someone will test both versions at some point, then we'll all get a real answer.
And, as with most things motor related......."It depends"(one of my favorite phrases).
But........ When going from std port to MW port..... In general, the bigger the cubes, the higher the cr, the bigger the cam, the better the intake and carb...... The more difference you'll see. A 14:1 572 with an .800 lift roller cam with a TR and dual carbs will see a lot more gain than a 9:1 383 with a performer and a comp he268 cam.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: AndyF]
#2173160
10/12/16 09:35 PM
10/12/16 09:35 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490 Sydney,Australia
tex013
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490
Sydney,Australia
|
thanks Andy , Dwayne I guess my question was in regard a 493/512 ci motor , where most feel the standard port will hold it back .In a street/strip application under 11.5:1 comp . wait and see how they go . I do like the fact they do not need an offset rocker .
Tex
New best ET 10.259@129.65 . New best MPH 130.32 Finally fitted a solid cam, stepped it up a bit more 3690lbs through the mufflers New World block 3780lbs 10.278@130.80 . Wowser 10.253@130.24 footbraking from 1500rpm Power by Tex's Automotive
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2173261
10/12/16 11:32 PM
10/12/16 11:32 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,531 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,531
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
The only real advantage I see with the TF 270 over a MW EZ head will be fit and finish, and possibly cost. They aren't really breaking any new ground here.
I know the 270 has been eagerly awaited, but frankly I think the 240 made more of an impact on the std port market than the 270 will make on the MW market. But, time will tell.
On a RB 451, the difference in power between ported 300cfm edelbrock heads/ Victor/1050 with a .650 flat tappet cam vs ported 343cfm MW SR's, 440-3/4500 .650 lift roller cam was 60hp......... 652 vs 712.
On that motor, the MW size ports didn't really move the peaks up much in the powerband at all. Maybe 1-200rpm.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2173265
10/12/16 11:39 PM
10/12/16 11:39 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,096 Australia
ozymaxwedge
super stock
|
super stock
Joined: Sep 2015
Posts: 1,096
Australia
|
^ That said they would still be the best bang for buck MW head out you think ?
We will be buying a set for my sons 440, 11-1 TRW, 650 lift engine, yeah we would be better off with the 240cc but it allows him to look at a stroker package later.
Thanks for all the info in this thread guys !!
1963 Plymouth Max Wedge 1971 Barracuda
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: fast68plymouth]
#2173268
10/12/16 11:42 PM
10/12/16 11:42 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490 Sydney,Australia
tex013
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,490
Sydney,Australia
|
thanks Dwayne , Andy guess I will see the results later this year
Tex
Last edited by tex013; 10/12/16 11:45 PM.
New best ET 10.259@129.65 . New best MPH 130.32 Finally fitted a solid cam, stepped it up a bit more 3690lbs through the mufflers New World block 3780lbs 10.278@130.80 . Wowser 10.253@130.24 footbraking from 1500rpm Power by Tex's Automotive
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: SILVER67]
#2173269
10/12/16 11:43 PM
10/12/16 11:43 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,531 So. Burlington, Vt.
fast68plymouth
OP
I Live Here
|
OP
I Live Here
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 14,531
So. Burlington, Vt.
|
Think the 240 heads are enough alone ?
Do I think if you swapped your mildly ported Edelbrocks for a set of TF 240's, and changed nothing else, that you'd see a gain of 60hp?? No, I don't. But..... There's one way to know for sure.
68 Satellite, 383 with stock 906’s, 3550lbs, 11.18@123 Dealer for Comp Cams/Indy Heads
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: SILVER67]
#2173373
10/13/16 03:30 AM
10/13/16 03:30 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
Andy, You have an INDY 2D you can test on these heads ? Indy doesn't make a low deck dual-plane intake, only an RB version.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: Cogito]
#2173944
10/13/16 07:34 PM
10/13/16 07:34 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439 Val-haul-ass... eventually
BradH
Taking time off to work on my car
|
Taking time off to work on my car
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 15,439
Val-haul-ass... eventually
|
I'm not sure why anyone would want standard port heads on anything larger than a 383 unless they were building a low rpm street car. And this comment is based on what experience, specifically?
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: Cogito]
#2173946
10/13/16 07:38 PM
10/13/16 07:38 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,804 Wichita
GY3
master
|
master
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,804
Wichita
|
I'm not sure why anyone would want standard port heads on anything larger than a 383 unless they were building a low rpm street car. McFarland's eqn doesn't hold up to reality. Thats exactly what I built. It runs reasonably well for a double duty car, but it is a compromise.
'63 Dodge 330
11.19 @ 121 mph Pump gas, n/a, through the mufflers on street tires with 3.54's. 3,600 lbs.
9.92 @ 135mph with a 350 shot of nitrous and 93 octane pump. 1.43 60 ft. 3,750 lbs.
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: Cogito]
#2173998
10/13/16 08:36 PM
10/13/16 08:36 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,719 Bend,OR USA
Cab_Burge
I Win
|
I Win
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 43,719
Bend,OR USA
|
My 512 C.I. pump gas low deck 906 head(mildy ported with 2.14 int. and 1.81 exh. valves, no magic in those heads) 400 block stroker with a low deck sixpak setup made 612 HP at 5500 RPM and 644 ft lbs at 4500 RPM on CA 91 0ctane pump swill years ago. It ran 10.69 at 124.7 MPH on 91 octane Oregon pump swill at Woodburn through the comnplete 3 inch exhaust and air cleaners on weighing 3450 lbs with me in it. That combination exceeeded my expecations by far There is nothing wrong in using what you have as far as I'm concerned I ended up turning that motor into a real street beast by swapping parts around on it, every time I put a better set of heads on it(I put a set of Eddy CNC ported RPM on it after the 906 heads, then a set of Indy M.W. SR with a Indy 400-3 intake and a Holley 1050 CFM Dominator carb and finally a set of Indy CNC ported big valve 440-1 heads that flowed 370 CFM at .700 lift with the same intake and carb. as the SR combination) the car ran faster and quicker, Mopar wedge motors love more air and fuel
Last edited by Cab_Burge; 10/13/16 08:44 PM.
Mr.Cab Racing and winning with Mopars since 1964. (Old F--t, Huh)
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: Cogito]
#2174024
10/13/16 09:10 PM
10/13/16 09:10 PM
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,399 Aurora, Colorado
451Mopar
master
|
master
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,399
Aurora, Colorado
|
I'm not sure why anyone would want standard port heads on anything larger than a 383 unless they were building a low rpm street car. McFarland's eqn doesn't hold up to reality. The formula is a starting point for comparisons, but works better when using a higher velocity like .55 Mach vs .5 Mach. At high altitudes, like here in Colorado, port cross section / velocity seems to affect performance, maybe more than at low altitude?
|
|
|
Re: Trick Flow heads
[Re: BradH]
#2174030
10/13/16 09:17 PM
10/13/16 09:17 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 100 KS
Cogito
member
|
member
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 100
KS
|
I'm not sure why anyone would want standard port heads on anything larger than a 383 unless they were building a low rpm street car. And this comment is based on what experience, specifically? Paying attention.
|
|
|
|
|