Oh, I was expecting something along the lines of engine building experience, dyno results backed up by on-track data, etc.

The 470 that I'm running right now has the std port 240 heads and the power peak is at 6500 rpm. So I'd say that is just about perfect for a budget bracket or street/strip type of engine. A car can be set up to run low 10's or high 9's with a 6500 rpm shift point without having to break the bank.

Some 4.56 gears with a normal tire size puts you across the line at 120 to 130 mph. 6500 rpm works just fine with moderate priced valve train parts so you don't have to spend a fortune there and you can build a short block with off the shelf parts to turn 6500.

The rb451 I tested the e heads and MW SR's on made peak TQ at 5800 and peak HP at 7000 with the 300cfm e heads.

then I should be good for mid to upper 9's with 512 cubes and 1.5 points higher compression and your old cam.

Oh, I was wondering what you were getting at. I prefer not to assume.

I've had my hands on a few 364 cubic inch builds that use cylinder heads w/ 3.1 in2 cross sections. W/ the correct cam they will outrun many 500" builds here at higher weight w/ PS and AC. Btw, the McFarland form misses the mark here as well.

My take...for general street use/grassroots bracket stuff...
Engine performance is dependent on airflow
Intake tract and valve timing/ramps dictate airflow into the cylinder
Assuming similar frequencies, you can use small ports and hang the valve open a long time to get 'x' airflow into the cylinder...or you can use larger ports coupled w/ opening the valve for lesser time to achieve the same 'x'
Smaller ports ultimately limit performance as airflow requirements increase (owner wanting more power). The larger ports allow nothing more than a cam to be swapped for desired results. Ideal camshafts will look quite different depending on head choice...don't expect to run an OTS cam w/ MW heads on a 440 and get exceptional results.

I'm disappointed to see no one talking about how influential the cam is in dictating power/torque peaks. An engine is much more than displacement and heads.

Sounds like a good topic for a new post, considering this one is focused on the Trick Flow heads. Same thing w/ the "big head / small cam" vs "small head / big cam" approaches.

Your questioning my experience didn't have anything to do w/ the thread, yet you did it anyway. Interesting that you ask me an off-topic question, then when I answer accuse me of derailing the thread.

I suppose I need to remind you the topic at hand was 240 vs 270 heads. The question was raised about how much the peaks would be shifted depending on the heads. Certainly I'm not the only one that noticed that almost all of the examples gave either no useful information or none at all about the cams being used...so my being disappointed about not seeing that info is not pertinent to this discussion? Strange...

Cogito: You don't need to remind me of anything. However, other posters on here will be far less polite in responding to comparably pompous and snarkey posts like your last one to me. If you can contribute real value, jump on in. But if you're simply going to be one "those people" who only comment when they believe they're right and someone else is wrong, you'll find out quickly that nobody will care what you say, regardless.

Nothing else to say on this matter beyond "Have a nice life!".

Back to the topic: I'll be interested in knowing how much the MCSA has increased from the 240 to 270, considering they still use a standard offset intake rocker. Dwayne's thought that the 240 is going to be more of an impact in the standard-port market than the 270 will be in MW market makes sense. TF didn't exactly push the limits with the new 270 head the way it's been described.

andy f,will you be doing some testing on the trick flow 270 heads soon

That is the plan but I don't know when Trick Flow is going to start shipping heads. I also don't know if they have a MW intake manifold or not. Once I know what I have to work with I'll get to work.

I saw your initial post yesterday, and thought, "cool, maybe he went back and reread everything w/ a calmer head and he's moved on" only to come back now and see you edited your post last night attacking me...yet again. I'm sorry you see my post as 'snarky' - trust me, it was not written w/ that intent. Alas, if for whatever reason I'm still upsetting you, once again I must suggest you reread everything...maybe this time w/ less of an assumption that I am somehow being aggressive toward/rude to you.



No more drama? Hooray!

ANDY, is there any dual plane that would be worthwhile to test on your short block with the TF 240 ?

I don't think so. Only half way decent dual plane for a B engine is the Performer RPM and I wouldn't want to run it on a 700 hp engine. It would kill 100 hp and mess up the mixture for some of the cylinders.

As they do on anything w/compression and hp imo................garbage.......

Depends on your definition of "compression and hp", doesn't it? If you're running 13:1 and 800+, a Performer RPM likely is not part of the build anyway...

True, I'm still running an INDY DP so was just hopeful

Curious
I may have missed the answer in one of the earlier threads. What are the flow numbers for the 240 and 270 heads? I am assuming the 240 and 270 are measured intake port volume. Or is their flow #s?
Jerry

I wouldn't run a dual plane intake past 600 hp. I've tried it before and it is always a disaster. Other people might have other experiences. The Indy DP is a decent intake but I still wouldn't run it if I thought the engine could make more than 600 hp with a single plane intake.

Nothing including damn near stockers I deal w/run a dual plane or even a carb smaller than a 750 dp...............but that`s my world which I happen to like................

240/270 is port size cc
240 flow numbers seem to be accepted as pretty close to advertised , no flow numbers for the 270 yet , got an email they will not be out till December . They will take their Trackheat (?) manifold , $2-300.00 dearer

Tex