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.

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

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.

Well, that was non-committal!

On my 470 I think I'll pick up 50 hp by switching from the 240 heads to the 270 heads but your mileage may vary. I'm right at sonic choke with the 240 heads on my engine so the larger intake port should allow the peak points to move up. But how far things will move all depends on how good the 270 heads actually work. Just making the inlets on the ports bigger may or may not work very well in practice. It all depends on how well the entire port works with the larger inlet.

I'm assuming that Trick Flow will start shipping the 270 heads after SEMA. If that is correct then I could be on the dyno by the end of the year. My 470 has 85 dyno pulls on it so we're pulling it apart and looking at the bearings. If everything looks good we'll put it back together and bolt on the 270 heads when they show up.

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

I'm not sure the standard port size holds back a 512 inch engine. You should be able to make 700 hp with pump gas compression if you build a serious engine with solid roller cam and ported intake and stuff like that. If you want an 800 hp engine then yeah, the standard port size is going to hold it back but most guys are happy with 600 honest hp and a standard port window shouldn't have much trouble hitting that number even with out of the box parts.

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.

^ 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 !!

thanks Dwayne , Andy
guess I will see the results later this year

Tex

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.

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.

Ratz, forgot about that part

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.

And this comment is based on what experience, specifically?

Thats exactly what I built. It runs reasonably well for a double duty car, but it is a compromise.

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

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?

Paying attention.