Trick Flow heads

I've got a few things going on in the shop right now so I haven't had a chance to scrutinize these things too much, but my first impression is that the overall fit & finish, and presentation is pretty nice. Over the next few days I'll try and get some measurements on them, but for today I only had a chance to put one on the bench and see what kind of numbers it put up.

Bore- 4.375
Test pressure- 28"
Intake tested with a radius plate, exhaust tested with and without a flow tube.
Exhaust flow tube diameter- 2"

Lift-----in/ex--ex w-tube
.100--71.6/52.9----52.9
.200-156.1/116.5--125.2
.300-229.3/163.6--174.8
.400-274.8/192.7--213.2
.450-290.5/202.6--226.1
.500-302.9/209.2--238.0
.550-311.1/215.0--245.7
.600-316.0/220.8--251.5
.650-317.9/222.7--254.2
.700-319.7/224.6--259.2
.750-321.6/226.5--261.1

Nice to see a head out of the box with numbers that continue to climb and not back up like most do. Looking forward to getting a set of these. Thanks for posting.

cool

That's pretty stout for an OOB standard-type intake port. How do the #s compare to the MCH CNC Edelbrock (Stealth?) you tested?

And another example of a stubby exhaust port that LOVES an extension added on to it.

Intake numbers are about 5% better than the last set of ported Edelbrock heads I had. The exhaust is roughly the same.

Thank you for the results & thank you for showing what was used to test the intake port & not using clay.
Intake tested with a radius plate

I ported a set of rpm`s years ago on Pettis`s flow bench that went 327-224 iirc w/the stock 2.14 intake valve BUT, if the meats there and someone either has a cnc program that will work w/these or can program, then they`d be really good for the intermediate power zone and a Max wedge could possibly really shine.......

Great info, (And Great to 'see' you, Fast)

Well there you go, 5-10 years ago guys who needed a "perfect" 650 horse capable head for their 500" B/RB strokers would have to buy a set of Eddie's and have them CNC'd or Hand ported, just to get about 95% of what we now have "off the shelf".

I really like the .400 lift numbers, mid lift is so critical for keeping the cylinders packed = Awesome torque. The non-stalling .500-.650 numbers look great for making big power at a still safe and moderate RPM ceiling. 290 at .450 lift is really exceptional IMHO, that's about PEAK flow for an out of the Box Edelbrock IIRC. Look perfect for a street-strip 10.5:1 440-451 4 speed and especially a 470"-520" Automatic.

Seems like a Near-Perfect gap filler, Standard 906 port size, anybody wanting/needing more would step-up from there to a Max Wedge. I've always liked the Trick flow finish quality, usually just want to upgrade the Locks/retainers and usually a quick 'true-up' of the as delivered VJ and they can be good-to-go compared to what I'd say to most other out-of-the-box head MFGs. I guess the main 'off the shelf' competition for these would be the EZ's but I'll bet the TF fit and finish is better.

I was planning on buying the std. port 440EZs for the 463 i'm putting together, but may now wait to see some more flow numbers on the Trick Flows.
Decisions, decisions

Nice to see a head right out of the box w/ comparable flow to a ported Edelbrock/Stealth/Sidewinder.

Ummm... I think you mean flow bench, not dyno.

More flow tests won't change how the heads work; I'll be interested in how they perform on an engine.

The flow numbers along with the modern combustion chamber should really make this head worth looking at. Even if the ported eddy matches the flow it should still be at a disadvantage. Can't wait to see some results in running cars. Thanks for the info Dwayne.

Since I don't know anything about a wedge why don't you guys enlighten me. Does this mean you use a bigger cam? I don't like rollers. Would a .590 lift purple shaft work well with these in a 512 BB? Thanks.

Brad, there was a post about Stealth head flow numbers a few weeks ago, I posted the numbers I got from the MCH CNC Stealth there.

https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbt...tml#Post1895565

Interesting they almost match a stock victor. I wonder what sort of things the head porting wizards will be able to do with these things.

I think the only standard port head that tops these As-delivered were the old Chapman Stage VI 260 (which I think JohnRR sent to Dwayne the same time I sent my Chap 265 MW's) And the Chapmans were Raised ports and long valve heads that need special rocker gear. I think they went 360 up around .600-.650, may still be in the Moparts archives. Not sure they were any better than these at .400-.450 though.

I'll have dyno numbers in a few weeks.

Purple shaft with stock stamped rockers are the HOT ticket right now.

Great Andy looking forward to it.

I can provide some comparative data from Dwayne's current bench (a Saenz 600) tested on the same 4.375" bore:

A. My old PRH-ported MP Stage VIs w/ 2.14" intake valves and small 215 cc runners (w/o RB adapters added). On a 10.8:1 CR RB 452 short block using a modified MP M1 intake, my BG "825" carb, 2" headers and a 266 at .050" x .600" x 108 LSA SFT cam, it made around 610 HP & 570 Tq on Dwayne's dyno.

Lift -- Int / Exh (no flow tube)
.100 --- 69 / 53
.200 -- 143 / 108
.300 -- 213 / 146
.400 -- 262 / 181
.500 -- 293 / 211
.550 -- 305 / 222
.600 -- 307 / 231
.650 -- 307 / 237
.700 -- 307 / 243

B. My Hughes CNC-ported 1st-generation Edelbrock Victors w/ 2.20" intake valves and an estimated 270 cc runner volume (adjusted down about 40 cc for the built-in RB adapters). Like the Chapmans, these have raised ports and need special-offset intake rockers.

Lift -- Int / Exh (no flow tube)
.100 --- 75 / 58
.200 -- 169 / 109
.300 -- 237 / 157
.400 -- 280 / 201
.500 -- 318 / 229
.550 -- 329 / 239
.600 -- 341 / 246
.650 -- 347 / 253
.700 -- 345 / 256

At the same CR as the MP Stage VIs and the .650" roller version of the SFT mentioned above, I'll take a s.w.a.g. and say I'd expect to see 640+ HP from the Trick Flows on the same RB 452 short block as the Stage VIs were tested, between the different heads and switching to a roller.

But it's all just educated(?) guesses until someone puts 'em in service.

My bad, too many blue moons..........

Brad, didn't some combination of stuff we tried end up making like 625hp?

The CNC "standard" port Victors had quite a bit bigger port opening as I recall compared to a true std sized head.
These TF heads have port openings that look like a std valley pan gasket would seal up okay.

This particular set I have in the shop are going on a pump gas 505 with a solid cam and a 6bbl.

Here's the Chapman 260 standard Ports ( from the Tech archives)



These are the Chapman CNC'd MP Stage VI 260cc's:

Lift" I/E

.100--71.5/58.2
.200-150.0/118.6
.300-219.4/180.0
.400-278.7/219.4
.500-323.6/233.9
.550-338.9/240.3
.600-352.3/243.5
.650-348.5/246.7
.700-348.5/249.9
.750-348.5/251.5
.800-348.5/253.1

I think up to .450 the TW's are impressively close. 290cfm at only .450 is gonna be killer, you basically only need a very mild .525-.550 lift cam to easily cover 600hp, easy on the RPM/bottom end, easy on springs too

Yeah, my ported Victor intake, a 1" open spacer and your CFS "dyno mule" Holley made about 625 HP. The 610 HP I referenced was as I ran it in my car (my carb & my ported M1 intake because of hood clearance), so I can correlate that to the car's on-track performance.

A modified Victor on the TFs w/ the .650" RX roller... 650+ HP? (EDIT: The standard port location would even allow for running a Victor intake under my T/A hood )


Right; Hughes' "standard" CNC job still opens the entry to 2.40" x 1.30"; not MW, but definitely bigger than a standard valley tray port size. (EDIT: Found something that says the TF port entry is 2.270″ x 1.230... is this what you measured, too?)


Bet my ol' 440 6BBL RR would have loved that engine!

I agree, but just want to see what the numbers may be after a little hand work. I'm wanting something in the 320-325cfm at .600".

I hate to say this Andy but your DYNO numbers never show up in track times. Something in your corrections must be accrue. LOVE your products and use them but MOST dyno numbers are way out in left field almost as bad as the rag racing magazines. Hopefully track times will be posted early spring.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. The dyno that I use sends a lot of engines to the track and the track times back up the dyno numbers. You live a couple of thousand miles away from me and don't know anything about the dyno that I test on or the engine shop involved.

Are the Trick Flows available w/stock straight plug design? Or are they all angled plugs? TTI headers in A-Body RB set up has a couple cylinders looking really close (visually) to accept angled w/out modifying.

Call Trick flow and let us know please

LOL - Yup, was going to call Friday

Uh oh!

Bill stepping it up a notch...

Someone needs to remake the Chapman heads.

I'd say to expect they're ALL angle-plug because it goes w/ how the chamber was designed.

You mean that still need RB adapters and sell for $2500+ each bare? I don't think so... They really missed the market for those.

Edelbrock could have nailed it w/ the Victors, only they didn't get it "right" either. At least you can still buy Victors and they priced them reasonably.

According to Trick Flow, they already are.

It seems every time a new product comes on the market there is always something about it that makes you scratch your head..... Like these harmless looking little squares cast into the decks of these new TF heads

Then you put a head gasket on the head, located by the dowel pin holes, and then I go......... Hmmmmm
First pic is a Cometic, second is the TF recommended Fel-Pro 1009.
The Fel-Pro is right at the edge of the square. I put some bluing on the head and scribed where the end of the head gasket lays.
I'm thinking there's gonna be a little leak here if you don't do something about it.
I also have a Victor graphite faced gasket here that was wide enough in this area that it would probably seal this off okay, but the gasket fire ring was ever so slightly inside the chambers in a few areas.
IMO, for the next batch of castings, TF should just fill these squares in. There is one at each end of the head, and they both have this same issue.

Fill with epoxy or weld er up!

But yeah that should be changed on the casting.

Overall, the fit and finish on these heads is quite nice, even though I found a couple of things done differently than I would like.
The machining looks real good, and the heads have been very nicely deburred.
The part number they show for head bolts is the same as used for Victor heads.
The rocker shaft bolt holes don't seem super deep and TF recommends using studs, and I would agree with that.
Obviously a company that's making and selling as many heads as TF does must have their reasons for doing certain things the way they do, and I'm sure I don't have the credentials to argue with those reasons, but there are a couple of things I would do a little different.
The guide clearance was pretty much right at .0008, although there were 3 exhaust guides on one head that were really closer to .0006. That's really tighter than I like to see them.
After brushing out the guides with solvent and wiping down the valve stems, they "felt" nice and smooth, but since the heads were already here and apart, and my customer wants me to use my best judgement on them, I honed them out for a little more clearance. I set them to .0010 intake and .0012 exhaust.
Another thing I would do differently is, the OD of the 45 on the exhaust valve job was like .015-.020 larger in diameter than the valve. I don't know if this is intentional on their part, or a slight mistake when they set up the cutter. My preference is to have the OD of the 45 to be .005-.010 inside the OD of the valve, particularly on street heads.
The 45 on the intake seat was right at the size of the valve at 2.19.

Why do these head companies recommend that 1009 gasket when it overhangs more bores than not?

Kevin

Heck if they are that bad I'll just buy a set of Elderbrocks. Are the Indy heads that much better than the TF,s?

Fill the hole with right-stuff and go on. As for eddelbrocks instead, well they all have tight guides also, most pro shops like to hone them out while most DIY guys just bolt em on and don't have an issue.

Yeah I just don't know alot about Aluminum heads. Never owned a set. Would I better off to buy the Indys?

My guess would be they all have inconsistencies do to mass production.

I have a few different rockers here I test fit to check the sweep.
The standard HS rockers are really too long. The TF specified part number is the rockers that fit the RPM heads, and they are shorter, so they should fit well.
I also checked an Indy/Dove rocker. Slightly too long.
A Comp Pro-magnum looks pretty good, but the best sweep of the rockers I have here was with a Crane Gold. I believe the "short" HS rockers are supposed to have the same shaft to roller relationship as the Crane Golds, although I haven't had any of those to check myself.

The things I've said I would do differently on these heads are really kind of nit-picky things. Of the currently available BB Mopar offerings, I would say these have the nicest overall fit and finish, especially when you take the price into consideration.
I don't see how you can go wrong with these things for $2000, if they will work in your combination for the level of performance you're after.

Keep in mind, TF guarantees you won't have any problems with the guides, valve job, valves, springs, etc. for two years, and I'm sure most of the heads they sell will get taken out of the box and bolted on.

And what is the "right-stuff" to fill the hole whit??

That's what I would like to know. Permatex?

Permatex??

Gasket Sealent.

I know what Permatex is, so you will fill that hole whit Permatex? I dont think thats is what i whant to do as a solution.

Permatex and JB Weld has been fixing leaks for years lol.

great to see an informative post Dwayne! just sitting in the shadows enjoying the info..... even though I've fallen back to my first mopar love.... small blocks!

Right stuff .. ... THE RIGHT STUFF , a gasket sealant.

I would just fill them with JB Weld .

People would be goin' out of their damn minds if this little square was on a "Chinese" head casting...

Thanks Dwayne.


Right stuff
http://www.autozone.com/sealants-glues-a...ker/416211_0_0/

Is there anything on the Is there anything on the deck of the block that would intersect that square divit in the head like any open passage?

Nice Info Dwayne!

Its a nice to see they are living up to all the hype so far!

The info on the rockers that fit is interesting
Rocker arms: Harland Sharp #S70015KE (1.5 ratio)
Harland Sharp #S70016KE (1.6 ratio)
Most COMP Cams and Crane Cams rockers

They also recommend
Rocker arm stud kit: Trick Flow #TFS-61600613

The only place that I can find that lists these other than HS (and they only list the 1.5)is Summit at $907 - I wonder if the Scorpion rocker under development will be the go to rocker for these since they do make many of rockers for the Ford Trick Flow heads.

It would be great if there was a comparison with same short block two sets of heads, Trick Flow and Edelbrock or Indy.

These heads look like my EZ heads only much nicer finish. I have to wonder why Trickflow doesn't make rockers to mate with these heads It cant be a big secret that there are issues with rocker arm geometry on big block Mopar heads. I really like my EZ heads but if these heads were out when I bought my Indys I would have bought these just because the ports look more finished.I had to do a lot of work to my EZ heads to make them work as well as they do.
Gus

Thanks Dywane
glad you're posting good information on the board again
Very informative as usual
Just wish there were more post like this.
Jim F

fabo also has a thread on these heads and did some flow numbers

You must be new here...

They'd be offering up 1001 and one uses .. and excuses ... for bubble gum to fill that hole

yes ... the lifter valley ...

Would you foresee any problems running the Crane ductile rockers?

Yep.

And, as usual, something in the water in Idaho leads to inflated flow bench numbers when compared to two others that are virtually identicle.

numbers ??

Link me, dude.

I was waiting for the big numbers from "the Idaho bench" to get posted here. Kinda curious they weren't. But numbers higher than everyone else sorta confirms that the bench is

Maybe Jim did a little magical clean up of the factory porting, hence the bigger numbers (at least that is what I'd claim ).

A guy on the bullet mentioned he got one of the first sets of heads. I advised him to send them to Andy F since they're both in the same state. He said he was sending them to Idaho instead. I warned him about the inflated numbers that come out of that part of the country but he sent them anyway.

LINK --- V Scroll to post #48

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1178282&highlight=trick+flow+mopar+heads

http://www.forabodiesonly.com/mopar/showthread.php?t=328349&page=4

I'm not going to post the numbers here to avoid confusion...

Let's just say ~20 more cfm at .500 lift.

Jim must be throwing a bit more correction into his numbers these days. Frankly, I was expecting he'd come in at 360+ cfm @ .600"-.700".

Hey, 40 more HP is nothing to sneeze at!

It's been my experience that he's usually pretty consistent if he's flowing an as-cast port. It's the "hand ported" results that IMO get really creative. Sometimes darn near impossibly creative.

Maybe Jim has hands like these and can get in the port where no 5 axis machine can...

Ha ha!

No problem, I can give you any kind of intake flows you want just by changing the radius plate. (1) no plate, (2) 1/4" clay roll, (3) 1/2" clay roll, (4) radius plate #1, (5) radius plate #2

Lift.......(1).......(2).......(3).......(4).......(5)

.100.....74......75...................75...........75
.200....151.....153................153.........151
.300....206.....225................225.........219
.400....229.....274................279.........272
.500....236.....291................317.........320
.600....239.....295................323.........338
.700....239.....284.....312.....315.........333

And yes, all intake ports I tested began to stall between .600" and .700" lift.

I probably have been making a mistake as to how I open the exhaust valve at the beginning of the test and skewing the opening lift flows. Here is what I get now, on this one port, with no pipe and then w/ my 2" pipe design.

Lift......no pipe......2" pipe w/belled end

.100......52.............53
.200.....119............133
.300.....161............185
.400.....192............227
.500.....211............251
.600.....223............267
.700.....230............273

Yep, head flow numbers don't mean a ton to me unless there is a way to really document everything. I found this out years ago on my own bench when I played around with head placement over the cylinder. It is easy to pick up some cfm my moving the intake over closer to the center of the bore. I finally built a fixture with dowel pins so the head was always in the same location on the bore. I also machined up a radius plate that I used on all heads. Once I did that I was able to start getting repeatable results.

There were some guys on SpeedTalk a while back who had a test fixture which they sent from guy to guy so everyone could calibrate their benches to the same fixture. Something like that makes sense for people who are working back and forth a bunch.

pass around calibration plates.


http://www.flowbenchtech.com/orificeplates.html

I participated in the flow-around on speedtalk a few years ago...results were very interesting.
I always wanted to know how my bench compared to Meaux's and found out it's just a tad lower than his.
We first tested flow plates, then tested an AFR BBC 385 head using supplied head, valves and radius plate, then tested a ProComp cnc ported SBC head with supplied valves and radius plate.
We were also told what bore size to flow at, and if we didn't have that size to include the size we used...
Brian

A Flowbench never has been, nor ever will be a Dynomometer.
And as I am quite sure we all know, it is just a "tool" to measure gains or losses in one particular area.
I don't discuss "flow" on the internet.... way too many variables not just in benchs, but in methodologies, which ALL can affect results.

THANKS to ALL of you here for posting your results, from ALL locations, very informative and much appreciated.

On the other hand, utilizing flow numbers from a KNOWN flow bench that has shown on track results that back up those flow numbers is never a bad thing!

Dwayne's numbers have always been spot-on IMO!

I like to see real world numbers vs.the inflated numbers that EVERY manufacturer publishes. Edelbrock, 440Source, Indy. They all publish ridiculous numbers.

Having the same Flowbench flow multiple different manufacturers not only gives a good comparison but shows how different heads shake out at different lifts. Invaluable information!

That is cool, I didn't know you participated in that flow around. I didn't participate since I'm a bit of hack when it comes to the flow bench. I just have a weeny 110 bench and it is only set up for BB Mopar heads.

My first set of TF heads showed up today and I figured out a couple of things. First of all they need 10x of the longer 5.000 inch head studs. That is a common part number but until TF or ARP build a kit you'll have to source your own. Same stud that is used in the B1 kit so if you have a spare B1 head stud kit laying around you can rob them from it. If you're building your own head stud kit I'd order 24 of the 2.725 short stud from ARP. The 2.725 stud fits better than the standard 2.750 stud that they use in their kits. The 2.725 stud screws in further and clears the header flange.

Even more interesting is the fact that the rocker shaft studs need to be all short ones. No long ones required. I used 10x of the 2.500 ARP stud and it worked just fine.

Good info guys, keep it coming as I am ordering my set when I get home from Sweden.

Excellent reply, and what a refreshing thread to read. Nice to see some technical things being dicussed.

Andy- when can we expect you to delve into the Gen III hemi stuff? A book from you would be an awesome thing!

So, between the two running posts on these heads, here's what I'd use as a check list for new Trick Flow head purchasers
1. Get guide clearance checked and corrected as needed
2. Get valve seat contact pattern checked and corrected as needed
3. Replace titanium retainers, if equipped, with tool steel retainers for street use
4. Fill in stupid square holes in head surface with JB Weld

Nice heads, but not looking like "just take them out of the box and bolt them on" from what I see

Also
5. Buy ARP Edelbrock Victor head bolt kit (I'm not a studs guy)
6. Buy set of ten ARP "short" rocker shaft studs and hardware
7. Rockers? Not sure what I'd use at this point, but there's got to be a better option than a $900 set of Harland Sharps

Yeah, just my 2 cents

I'm surprised ARP doesn't offer a stud kit for the Victor heads yet. I would have thought there would have been enough demand for it that they would have issued a part number for it.

Thanks for posting all the good info and pics Dwayne! Yeah, us Victor guys are left to fend for ourselves sometimes. A stud kit would be great but only after the center rocker stand thread inserts are sunk deeper into the head so the center stands don't break off ... I preemptively pulled the factory Heli-coils out and drilled, tapped and installed new inserts about 1.0 inch further into head as other Victor guys have. Saw it here on Moparts

Would the ARP 145-4012 stud kit work with these? it is for the B1 but also what I used on my Victors as per Hughes recommendations.

Got a call from TF and they are listening because I brought up the these holes and they are going correct this problem in the next castings. They told me if I had my heads and hadn't put them on send them back but if I wanted to use them just fill the holes in with right stuff. He said they had done alot of testing and assured me they were good but they wanted to go ahead and fill the holes in. If you guys have any ideas and suggestions to make to TF I suggest you call them because they are trying hard to make us a very good head.

FWIW, the Eddy RPM have a couple casting pockets in the head mounting surface too. Theses actually go edge on edge with the block water passage, and would appear to be a real potential for a water leak, but they don't seem to, and nobody seems to care either.

That's why I'm buying a set of these heads off of TF. They obviously do care.

And reading this makes me more re assured that I am making the right selection.

Well, here's a start, courtesy of a post from earlier:

Russ, actually I know of several people who had problems with the earlier casting Edelbrocks leaking coolant from that area after they had been in service a while. After it was discovered Edelbrock filled in most of that recess to eliminate that issue.

I'm happy to hear TF is listening and is planning on filling in the squares.
On the heads I had here, if you wanted to use a Cometic gasket you absolutely would have had to fill in the squares since those gaskets didn't seal off either side of the square. It just created an open path from the valley to the outside of the engine.

Dwayne, have you taken a look at how much valve lift a guy can run with these heads? It looks to me that .750 is easy right out the box with a spring change. Not sure if they'll go 0.800 lift or not but it looks really close. I think a set of Manley 221420 springs will fit in there and they should go 0.800 lift at 2.00 installed height.

Has somebody made this call to TF yet and let them know instead of getting on here and complaining? I thought the the ti retainers were an option and the heads already came with steel retainers?

Summit has them listed with steel or Ti retainers.

Info I found from "way back" says there are four different spring & retainer combinations, so the purchaser needs to determine which spring option fits their application:
TFS-61617801-C00 1.460″ dual valve springs
TFS-61617802-C00 1.550″ dual valve springs
TFS-6161T783-C00 1.550″ dual valve springs w/ ti retainers
TFS-6161T784-C00 1.560″ dual valve springs w/ ti retainers

I know the 1.560" is intended for a solid roller up to .700" lift, but don't know what the others are spec'd for.

Somebody who actually intends to purchase the heads (or works on them for a living) is a better person to pass on this info than someone like myself who is not a prospective customer and is simply compiling info for other's knowledge base.

A dyno never has been, nor ever will be, a drag strip. It, too, is a tool to measure gains & losses which may (or may not) translate into real-world performance changes as installed in a given vehcile.

This is the question that deserves an answer - so Dwayne what would be your initial thoughts when comparing these 3 heads and which one would have the most potential out of the box and worked over?


Russ

Don't lie to us Brad, we know you want a set

Does he really need another set of dust collectors?

Yes, I do.

And, no I don't.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I won't lie: I'd already priced it out to see what it would cost to change directions and finish putting my RB 452 back together w/ TFs, and save all my Victor stuff for my fresh RB 451 short block.

Because I've switched to a solid roller, and with having bought offset-intake pushrod lifters and the offset-intake rocker arm setup for the Victors, I couldn't do it cheaply enough to justify trying them out. Especially knowing they're still not in the same league as my CNC'd Victors, it would just be a nice "proof of concept" before putting the other parts I've already paid for into service.

So, unless somebody(s) else wants to pony up a set of heads, rockers & roller lifters to see what they can do on The MoPig, it ain't happening on my dime!

I hear you Brad, these look interesting to me, I'm just running a set of lowly OOTB (essentially) stealths, but the question is do I send them to modern for 1K and get them CNCed or pony up extra and start with the Trick Flows. Flow will be similar but a bigger port with the CNCed Stealth (not exactly sure how much bigger), will have to wait and see, and really investigate the options and the ceiling on the Trick Flows. Plus I may need another set of pushrods. And the money spent at Modern gives me a good VJ, which is sounds like the Trick Flows can use a better valve job like all of the other OOTB heads? I need plenty of other stuff for my car before I even get there though. I know you've invested WAY MORE in that Victor setup how are you doing getting past all of the hurdles?

Contact Modern for the actual price, but if you already have good springs and retainers the price is less than $1k. I just had mine done...

I did send an email, but I didn't make mention of the springs or retainers but I have changed them already. Will have to follow up thanks!

I predict that the market will soon be flooded with used Stealth heads, that'll be good for me and my aspirations.

R.

The big difference I see so far between the TF heads and the RPM/Stelth heads is the extra height. The TF heads are taller, they have longer valves and more installed height. The TF heads allow you to run .700 lift right out of the box and with a valve spring change you can run a lot more than that.

I test fitted my RAS rocker arms to the TF heads yesterday. Geometry looks just fine up to about .750 lift and then the rocker arm starts to roll towards the inside edge of the valve. Really doubt very many people are going to run that much lift.

There is enough room between the retainer and the seal to go .800 lift and the installed height is right at 2.00 inches.

What ratio RAS rockers are you testing Andy? I have a set of the RAS 1.5 and 1.6 now,(they had the first set since late last year or in January of this year) trying to decide what to do with them Now that there are some good investment cast stainless steel rocker arms availble this will probally be the last sets of ductile iron rockers I'll use

I'd definitely throw a used set on my 383 mule, so that makes 2 of us

Andy, the roller springs that come on those heads would likely be suitable for just about any roller cam I would use with them. If I were putting something together that I thought needed an .800 lift cam, I would just use bigger heads.
That Manley spring is like 900lbs open. I can't see myself opting to run that much spring with a normal shaft set up that only has five 3/8" studs holding it in place, and that much span between the studs.
I have no doubt that it won't be long and someone will put a set of these heads on something and run .800 or more lift, and make good power in the process. I just don't feel like that was the type of build these heads were targeting. I'm sure 700hp+will be easy enough to make with a pretty simple 505rb combo and a cam that would work okay with the supplied roller springs........ And that's more along the lines of what I feel is the main type of build these heads were intended for.

Only if Stealth users that swore they wanted to keep the "stock look" are willing to give that up.

I expect you'll see some Edelbrock Performer RPM heads show up for sale, too.

I'm close to ordering and have spoken to both Summit and Trick Flow Tech Lines. Both came back with same selection recommendations based on current engine build, valve train, and intended use provided. Give them a call as they were glad to be of help in making the right choice.

....and thanks for all the advice in the post

For assurances, what is the ARP Part#?

Longer head bolts if you already have a stock length 145-3606 ARP Hex head bolt kit and just want to buy the ten longer bolts instead of a complete 145-3609 kit are ARP-HAP4500-5

Thank you!

I mocked up the rocker arms with a thick steel hold down and a thick washer and came to the conclusion that a 2.750 long stud would be better.

The Crane rocker arms look like they fit pretty well on these Trick Flow heads.

Different rocker arms on the TF heads:

Good call; you can see minimal threads captured with this setup - top end of studs.

We're all learning together on these...thanks for the additional update!

AndyF,

What is the part number for those rocker cover gaskets. Are those from Felpro?

Moroso makes them. Rubber coated steel. They work really well with a cast valve cover that has a flat rail. About the only gasket that works with a vacuum pump.

http://www.summitracing.com/parts/mor-93055/overview/

I've had no luck with those Moroso gaskets, probably cuz I over-torque them. The Superformance gaskets are 10 times better in my opinion.

ARP part number for the 2.75 long studs should be ARP-AJ2-750-1B

Thanks AndyF!

Has anyone got these heads on a running engine yet? If so whats the verdict.

Mock up with RAS rocker arms:

I just got a set of rocker arms from Hughes so I'll get those installed and snap some pictures. The new Hughes rocker arms look great.

Andy dose RAS still sale those rocker arms and shafts. Looked on there site couldn't find them. Thanks.

No idea. RAS was sold then went out of business and then came back under a different name. The RAS rocker arms used to be the best shaft rocker arm you could buy for a BB Mopar but I don't think they ever sold enough of them to stay in business. I've owned a few sets over the years and always had great luck with them.

We are looking at going for a set of these heads for my sons Aussie A Valiant, it is a mild 440, 11-1, 650 lift solid cam that is currently running my Max port 370cfm SR indys. Have been told that the engine would like the smaller T/F's. Might get my heads back

Hughes rocker arms. This new design looks pretty tough. I like the groove and the beefy design.

^^^Those look nice.

Andy - How's the sweep pattern look w/ the Hughes rockers on the TF heads? I'm going to take a s.w.a.g. they're a little long for those heads w/o trying something like a B3RE relocation kit.

Oh, and your picture of the RAS setup makes me (once again) regret having sold mine years ago.

I wonder how the new COMP Pro Magnum (?) bushed stainless-steel rockers would work on the TFs? Too bad they only offer a 1.5 ratio.

The sweep looked okay to me in a quicky test but I need to order new pushrods before I really know for sure. The TF heads require pushrods that are about .600 longer than usual so nothing in my large drawer of pushrods was a match. I usually have something that fits but not this time.

Andy, what hold downs are you using in the picture with TF and Hughes rockers?

Those are the Hughes hold downs. (which are a copy of the original heavy duty hold downs that RAS used to make) I don't think RAS makes the hold downs anymore so Hughes started to make them. They are really nice hold downs machined from hex bar stock. They provide a nice wide area for the rocker arm to ride on.

Hey Andy,

I have the RAS also. How was the sweep pattern across the tip?

Thanks
Damon

Yeah, dying to see some running motor results with these, even OOTB results.

Just an fyi; I had rocker arms unlimited (RAS) bush a set or Isky rockers for me this year and I bought their shafts with banana groves and their hold downs as pictured above in AndyF's picture. Gary mentioned that they've discussed making their own rocker arms again for Mopars. The shafts were the biggest hold up in getting everything back as the business that chromes the shafts for them took awhile; Gary told me that they just don't send enough to the business for a fast turn around. It sounds like they wait until they have a big enough order to do them all at once; I could be wrong though.

Just info, Andy I run those Huges rockers on my 528, I rate them as the best rockers Ive ever had.

The sweep pattern looks good with the RAS rocker arms up to about .750 lift. If you're going to run more than .750 lift then I'd suggest some Jesel rocker arms.

IMM has an engine going together with TF heads and so do I. Not sure who will get on the dyno first. I'm sure there are some other guys with engines going together.

Has anyone heard a date that the intake is going to be available?

making some progress

Subscribed..............

andy f,what would be the advantage of a belt drive over gear and chain drives,i know the belt would have to be changed every year

Just a guess, easier too adjust cam adv/ret, less spinning weight and harmonics.

The belt drive provides a thrust bearing for the camshaft and it allows for easy centerline adjustments. It is also really easy to work with in terms of other accessories such as the crank trigger, dry sump, belt driven distributor etc.

Heads come out of the box ready for .700 lift so I'm going to use it.

Subscribed!! looks sweet!!

thanks andy f

I ordered up a set last week with an ETA of 12/28 but got notice they'll be here Tuesday so I'm assuming someone returned theirs from the first batch. Would it be worthwhile to wait for the second batch with the recesses filled? I'm not in a huge rush if they're really going to be here in January but we all know how "ETA" dates work.

Excited to see how these work out for you Andy!

Looking at Summit Racing website; TF Heads show 10% off today 11/23/15

They will be 10% off until 11/30 I think at Summit online or in store.

Little square hole is gone on the set that arrived today.

Nice!!!

So apart from valve shrouding, has anyone seen any reason no to put these on a 4.280 bore? if the lift is kept under .600 it should be all good?

I mentioned this in a prev thread and the guy from trickflow came back with it would fit, but they just speced the larger bore size because of the 2.19 inlet valve... no other tech explanation other than "because"...

them being 10% off at summit atm is a deal clincher for me, will have to see if i can generate the coin b4 they go off special though, 5 days argh (and if they have any left!)

Edit: ahh (expletive) it, Im going to blow something up in the trans or the diff if i do use these guys, too much power, too much compression, too much stall needed. Im going to stick with the sidewinders, 500 ish hp is enough for my build/budget.

Still would like some opinions on the idea though

Is the Chamber to small to use on a older build with l2266 pistons 30 over 440? I had the deck cut .040, IIRC they were down the hole .060 or .070. It has ported and shaved 452's on it right now, cam is a PAW 224 grind.

I put them on a 4.250 bore with a .039" gasket and the intake valve hit the cylinder wall at .770" lift. On the exhaust valve the retainer hit the seal at .850" and hadn't struck the cylinder wall.

That is one of the reason, 4.250 bore size with the 1.880 exhaust valve sizes, that Mopar notched the cylinder walls on all the Max Wedge blocks with those small lift(.525 max lift on the stage 3 425 HP motors) stock cams. Do those T.F. heads come with the 2.19 size intakes valves stock or is that a option or did you put thoes in your heads?

We ended up honing the valve guides slightly to provide "racing clearance". The valve clearance was "pass car" tight right out of the box. Everything else looked good. We swapped out the Ti retainers for some steel retainers. The steel retainers are only $45 and they won't get chewed up by the damper. I'm pretty sure the engine will still spin 7000 rpm with the steel retainers so no need for the lighter weight components. If we run into a float issue then I'll install some tool steel retainers.

Engine is ready to fire up. Should have some data after T-day. Baro is 30.15 and outside temp is 45 degrees so we're looking at some good air density numbers for dyno testing. Uncorrected numbers should be really nice.

Couldn't resist the Summit Racing 10% discount and ordered a set of the "street" version Monday (TFS-61617801-C00). Estimated ship 1/2/16. Great to see TF acted on the feedback from this thread and thanks for all the guidance/info sharing too. It's made parts ordering much much easier (shaft studs, head bolts, etc.).

Just in case I missed it what is the rest of engine combo?

With the heart shaped chamber,will a .140 Ross dome piston work? .014 in the hole .027 headgasket 4.350 bore.

Nice to see a company that actually responds to consumer feedback in a timely manner.

Any idea if TF reset the he exhaust seat cutter more inboard to address the issue Dwayne saw on the earlier set of heads?

Making some good power on the dyno for a 10.5 pump gas motor!

Andy weres the hoses coming off valve cover going? Thanks

In for numbers... Also interested in what their matching intake will do. Their stuff for the Chevy and Ford motors works very well, glad to see them stepping into our market.

The hose off the valve cover goes to a blow by meter. That way we can see how well the engine seals up during the dyno pulls.

I'll test one of their intakes as soon as it is available. No idea when that is going to be though.

Andy, what brand/type of blow by meter are you using?

It is a B&B meter. Just an old analog type design with a ball in a tube. Not sure how accurate it is but it gives us some relative comparisons between engines. This 470 was reading around 5 cfm at WOT which seems to be in the ballpark for a performance engine.

My friend bought one from Jegs that's like what you described, and we couldn't get it to do anything except make the ball bounce. It's seems almost like the ball is too heavy, and it ends up sealing the tube until a bunch of pressure builds up, then it shoots way up, lets all the pressure off, then drops to the bottom and seals the hole again......then repeats that over and over.

Yes, it does bounce around a fair amount during a dyno pull. Best test for blow by would probably be a steady rpm or maybe a step test where the steps are long enough for things to stabilize.

In for numbers as well.

On the blow by meter when I worked at Katech, in Clinton Twp. Mi. We used one from "Dwyer " I Think the range was 0 - 10 CFM. Go to there web site, www.katech.com. They will show the dyno cell pictures,use that as a reference!!! Good luck!!

Local engine builder asked to see the heads then asked if he could hang onto 1 to see what numbers they'd get. He was impressed. I took a picture of their results.

When the results exceed the manufacturer's claimed flow #s, I question the flow bench's calibration.

Glad you said it so I didn't have to. Must be one of those Idaho brand benches.

Only passing on what they showed while doing other heads. They have nothing to gain no matter the results. If it's considered misinformation I'll gladly remove it.

I am a neighbor to R&R, and have had them do work, as well as know their reputation for performance matching their dyno results and flow tests.

This is why I don't count on flow numbers from other benches as being able to be directly compared to mine.
This isn't saying one bench or the other is more accurate than the other as much as pointing out that flow numbers gleaned from different sources can, and do differ.
I'm quite sure that the head tested at R&R and the one I tested would be much closer to each other than the two sets of numbers posted would indicate if they were tested on the same bench.
I mean, no one actually believes that two CNC ported heads are going to vary that much, right?

Do we know if the R&R test on the exhaust side is using a pipe or not?
And if so, what size?

On another topic, Andy.... Did you check the net lift with and without lash with the full sping load?
I'm wondering how much flex is in those rockers.

It isn't misinformation, it is just probably at the high end of the range for test results. Test setups vary and test results vary. Most engine guys understand that numbers vary from bench to bench.

I haven't done that yet but I will try to remember to next time I'm over at the dyno shop. We're planning to do some more carb and intake manifold testing the end of this week. I'd love to hit 700 hp with this combo but I'm guessing that I need a little bigger cam in order to see that number.

Torque peak right now is at 5700 with peak HP at 6300. Cam is 271/.460 lobe single pattern. We'll try a lash cycle and maybe retard the cam a couple of degrees to see which way to go for more power.

Whut?!

And dyno to dyno... and I've seen first hand some pretty big variation between a couple of dynos.

And DYNO to track. LOL.

Who uses the track as a measurement of performance?!

i dont get excited about flowbench or dyno numbers..MPH answers my questions

MPH can be skewed by a lot of things un related to the engine also... aero dynamics, gearing, stall, chassis set up, driver... just to name a few. Dyno and flow bench are tools to help you get a better number at the track but if you don't know how to use them they are worthless just like a wrench if you don't know what to do with it.

This!! ^^^^^^^^^^

Peak HP and TQ only occuring 600 rpm apart? Any chance of valvetrain instability? Peak power I would expect a minimum of 1000 rpm more than TQ = 6700. I doubt it's the cam's duration. J.Rob

I don't think we have a valvetrain issue, at least I don't see or hear any signs of it. Torque peak is probably closer to 5300 than 5700. The last report I ran said 5700 but when I look at the numbers it looks like the peak is 5300 and then 5700 just had a little spike which might not be real.

Intake manifold vacuum starts to go back up over 6000 rpm so I think that is what I need to focus on first. Not sure if I'm running out of air or if the gauge is getting wacky on me.

Andy,can you please post as much info on that build as possible???
Looks very interesting???
Thank Nick

It is just a bracket motor type build with some upgraded parts. 10.5 shelf pistons from Diamond, 6.70 long Chevy rods, 3.91 crank (SCAT Superlight). I'll be running a big solid solid roller so I went with the Jesel front drive kit (belt drive and belt driven distributor). Trick Flow heads right out of the box, a Victor intake (or Mopar M1 4500) and a 850 DP carb.

The Superlight crank is a little higher end part than most guys use as is the Jesel front kit but neither of those items are "exotic". Just stuff that the typical bracket guy doesn't spend money on.

I haven't sorted out the camshaft yet. The first one I tried might be a bit too big for this engine so I'll try a smaller one next. The pump gas compression makes the cam choice a little more difficult.

I checked the net lift with the full spring load and there doesn't appear to be much flex. Gross lift is .690 but actual net lift with 0.015 cold lash is .680. So that tells me that the rocker arms are a touch more than the 1.50 adv ratio. With the checking spring and no lash I was getting around .694 so there doesn't appear to be much flex at all.

andy f,so your saying the jesel belt drive is the best choice,dont the belt has to be changed every year

Looks like those rockers are quite rigid. Be nice if they started making those again.

Another steel rocker besides comp would be nice! I contacted ras a couple weeks ago and they said they will have another rocker out for us soon.

Nice indicator set-up!

From what I have heard.. I dont know for fact.. but
TD is making steel rockers also.. I dont know what
they fit or if they are making for BB or SB

MPH will never be calibrated beyond what it is. Factors causing it to be low yes, but not high.
Doug

I like to use a belt drive when using a big solid roller. The belt drive provides a solid thrust adjustment, it works well with the crank trigger, it provides a simple way to mount a belt driven distributor and it makes it easy to adjust/change the camshaft.

Andy; what rockers do you have on those haeds? I see that you have mopar valve covers? Thanks

Rocker arms are from RAS. Yes, I have MP covers but I don't really like them. I'm going to make my own covers since I'm tired of messing around with stuff that doesn't fit right.

Do you think Andy that with T&D rockers those rocker arm covers will work? Thanks

What brand and size of studs are those for the valve covers? Are those Moroso Gaskets?

I have a set of these heads coming to Australia for a mild 440 build.
Thanks for all the info Andy.

ARP stainless steel valve cover studs. Moroso valve cover gaskets.

I should add that the Moroso valve cover gaskets don't work with the MP valve covers. The MP valve covers cut the Moroso gaskets and ruin them.

I've used the Moroso gaskets with the Indy cast covers for years without any problems but the MP valve covers ruined the Moroso gaskets almost immediately. I switched back to the thick black FelPro gaskets for the rest of the dyno session.

Andy I have those gaskets and MP valve covers and haven't had any issues. My MP covers are at least 10 yrs old. Do you know if MP may have changed the valve cover. Not questioning what happened to you just wondering out loud. Thanks

Do you have Trick Flow heads? It appears to me that the valve cover and the head don't line up so the gasket is in shear. The rubber can't handle the load and splits. A thick fiber gasket can handle the shear load.

What's the preferred valley pan to use with aftermarket heads?

See 440 Source, Hughes, Indy, etc. all have options to choose from....thoughts?

how much horsepower can be made with these heads ?? I don't see dyno numbers?? thanks Ed

330 cfm will make 650 to 700 hp depending on the rest of the combo. 600 hp should be fairly easy to make with pump gas and street/strip type cam. Trick Flow posted dyno numbers for their test engine.

I used a stock tin valley pan with gaskets glued to each side.

for what its worth, I just ordered the hughes two piece from mancini for $62.00 figured it was worth a try.

I used a stock tin valley pan with gaskets glued to each side. [/quote]for what its worth, I just ordered the hughes two piece from mancini for $62.00 figured it was worth a try. [/quote]

I am curious how this works out . Keep us informed

Tex

Thanks Andy. So the issue seems to be a combo of the head and VC. I wasnt sure from the 1st post if that was the case or if something with the VC changed.

for what its worth, I just ordered the hughes two piece from mancini for $62.00 figured it was worth a try. [/quote]

I am curious how this works out . Keep us informed

Tex [/quote]

Didn`t work for me but maybe you`ll have better luck.......

I am curious how this works out . Keep us informed

Tex [/quote]

Didn`t work for me but maybe you`ll have better luck....... [/quote]awww crap, that don't sound very incouraging,,what did or didn't it do, so I know what to expect.

Tried it on my buddy`s 512 years ago and no matter what we did it leaked BADLY and we even tried the "Right stuff".......

Same here. Waste of damn $ but of course they'll blame it on your install. Funny how I've never had any other valley pan leak. Save yourself some time and $. My 2 cents.

Have to say I'm impressed with TF's response to customer feedback. Much better than other suppliers whose attitude seems to be "you will buy our half assed product and like it."

Me too, I installed one on a good freind of mines motor, it always leaked I have heard since then that if you remove the powder coating on the sealing surfaces and then use a good sealant it will seal. I haven't done that so who really knows or not IHTHs

this is confusing, what didn't work, was it the factory or hughes pan

The Hughes pan

Dominic was the same part number. In fact my freind ended up trying a one piece steel 440 Source valley pan on his motor with the B1-BS M.W. ported heads and he stil had problems getting it to seal up with the Right Stuff The thicker cast and billet aluminum valley covers don't seem to have that problems as much

Note to self: don't try to save a few bucks on lower priced part's,,guess I just added one more item to the swap meet pile.lol

I bet a certain someone can whip you up one on the water jet - no problem

maybe even one with a access plate

Greg(Superformance)suggested some flat alum. sheet like he did so I may go that route to get rid of the pan and keep oil out of the intake ports........

I am curious if the Hughes 1-piece cover works OK, but recall enough complaints about the 2-piece design to rule that one out.

The scrub pattern from the RAS rocker arms looks really good for almost .700 lift.

I was running an out of the box Victor 383 intake. Looks like there is some room for improvement with port alignment. All of the ports look like this.

That's almost as bad as the ports on my B engine M-1 tunnel ram. No pics right now, but it's going to take filling and re-drilling the holes and/or welding/grinding the ports walls to get it lined up-Doh!. I found out the NOS was POS.

After reading about the coating not allowing the silicone to seal, I may try the 2-piece since it seems easier to get ALL surfaces tight and sealed unlike a 1-piece deal but not sold on that yet.......

The floor is lower and the roof height is the same with the TF head compared to conventional placement...really?

It may be better to leave it as a built in reversion shelf

Go with a thicker gasket and slot the bolt holes
a little.. then port the top side if needed

How's that same gasket look on the head,

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single time where I used those fel-pro paper gaskets and they properly lined up with all the ports on any heads. Generally, when you line up one pair of ports, the ones at the other end of the head are too far from the first pair.
When those are the gaskets that will be getting used, I cut the gasket and take a little slice out of it so I can line up each pair of ports individually.

Did I understand him to say that the gasket in the photo "fits" the head as expected but the same gasket fits the intake as illustrated?

I took it that way, but was commenting that "usually"(well, never in my case) does that gasket properly line up with all 4 ports on the head.
They aren't as far off as the ports are in the pic of the manifold though.

I'll post a picture of the gasket on the head. It looks to me like the head was ported to the gasket but I'll double check. It would make some sense for TF to port their heads to the FelPro gasket even if the FelPro gasket doesn't fit stock heads perfectly.

I don't have a good picture that shows all four ports but this picture shows one pair. The other pair look roughly the same.

Yep, the Fel-Pros are spaced too wide, the Indy SR gaskets are spot-on, and the Indy MW gaskets are too narrow.

For some odd reason, when Hughes CNC'd my "standard port" Victors, it looks like they spaced the ports approx. the same as Indy does their MW gaskets, so I have to cut "good" standard-port gaskets to fit that narrower port spacing. Hughes' own house-brand gaskets don't fit, either.

You'd think something this basic wouldn't be a freakin' problem, given everything else that goes into designing a head or a CNC program. This type of inconsistency plays He11 w/ intake manifold port alignment, too.

Then, IIRC, the Crane "gold" should work out pretty well, too, although their adjusting screw angle may be pretty far "out there" at .600"+ lift.

Everything else I know of is probably going to sit too far to the exhaust side and require something like a B3RE "realignment kit" to pull the sweep pattern back in.

I think the head porters use a certain gasket as a template but they might not tell anyone which gasket they used.

My EZ heads from MCH didn't line up with any MW gasket until I tried a Mr Gasket #302. Perfect alignment. So I'm guessing that MCH used the #302 gasket as their template.

tf posted dyno numbers,but did they show the motor combination anywhere?

A little bit of info in their SEMA vid on the build

Trick Flow Powerport Heads

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..............

looks like a possible upgrade, will have to wait and see how they do,,my question would be how much can the present ones be blown out from their currant rendition.

Did mock-up install today to evaluate plug clearance with the TTI A-Body (71 Swinger) RB Headers I'm running - Clearance looked good.

I tested a smaller cam today and with a Dominator carb it picked up significant power everywhere over the big cam/850 DP combo that I ran last time. Gained 40 ft-lbs of peak torque and 15 hp at peak. At the bottom of the RPM scale it picked up a ton of power.

I weighed the engine after it came off the dyno. 515 lbs complete with water pump, distributor, oil in the pan, etc. Not too shabby for a weight.

That is inline with another fellows 470 B engine with alum topend and oil in it, IIRC 519 lbs.

Andy the engine stand/dolly that you sell that you have pictured, do you still sell them ? I'd like to get one, IM me here when you get chance

thanks
Keefe

Are we gonna get to hear what kind of mustard it made with what goodies?

Yeah that was a super popular product. Very handy too since I was the only guy who used 5 inch casters. The big casters let the engine roll really nice. I had to stop making those dollies though when I lost a key supplier.

675 hp and 630 ft-lbs of torque are the best numbers so far on pump gas. Still working on it.

Ok thanks...

Well we have had one ( yeah 1 ) head show up, might be looking at only making 200HP with this combo if the Australian Customs don't hand the other one over.

Nice,,with a little more compression it should be in the 700 range,,,keep us posted Andy.

Called TF yesterday morning and he said mine were about 3 weeks out, probably closer to 2.

Andy how big is that test mule?

It is a low deck 470. 4.375 x 3.91 with 10.5 compression.

Andy would you mind sharing a little more info far as piston,rods and cam

SCAT superlight crankshaft and I beam connecting rods. Diamond shelf pistons. First cam was a Bullet single pattern, 271/.690. Second cam was Ultradyne single pattern solid roller, 259/.650 lift. Third cam is being ground now. Also have a new carb on the way as well as a few other parts. Should be back on the dyno by the end of the month. The intake manifold needs to be ported but no luck getting that done quickly. Might need to try porting it myself.

Andy ,
did you try the dominator with the Bullet cam ? I presume the bullet is a flat tappet solid ?
thanks for your input

Tex

I did not try the Dominator with the Bullet cam, I didn't have it in time. The Bullet cam is a solid roller. I think the Bullet would work great if the engine had a little more compression or if it was in a dedicated race car. Low end torque doesn't matter too much if you have a 5000 stall!

[/quote]Called TF yesterday morning and he said mine were about 3 weeks out, probably closer to 2. [/quote]

Whoop! Whoop! Good to hear you are getting closer. I'm stalled out waiting for pushrods to arrive.

Did have to remove some material from a corner of the cast valve covers to clear MSD Distributor body (head to distributor clearance is fine).

Thanks for the info Andy.

Thanks Andy for the answer .
Would you consider trying a solid ft cam ? I know they give up some power but as these are not a "race" head would this not help the majority of users of this type of head .
I know i might be a Luddite but i am happy to use a cost effective ft cam

Tex

has it been determined what head studs or kit is going to be used with these heads.

I found that flat tappet cams were just too expensive for me to use so I switched to roller cams for my dyno engines. I'm already on the third cam in this engine so that would be a lot of lifters if I was using a flat tappet. Plus if you eat a lifter the entire engine needs to be rebuilt which is a couple of weeks of downtime as well as $2000 in parts.

I agree that a flat tappet setup is less money for a "one and done" street engine, but I can't afford to do engine R&D with a flat tappet cam.

Thanks Andy ,
yes I do understand for R&D a roller is simpler . Thanks again for your input .

Tex

TF has a stud kit listed on their website. The TF kit wasn't available when I built my engine so I made my own stud kit using ARP parts.

Thank's Andy, I had seen a TF number but didn't know how it corelated with ARP's number's, I will check it out.

From Page 7 of the thread: Complete Head Bolt kit is ARP 145-3609...if opted for over studs.

I am going with stud's and as far as I can tell it is 145-4206 kit w/12pt nut's, if you want stud's w/hex nut's it is 145-4006.

Those part numbers are for RPM heads. The center studs will be too short to work on the TF heads. I think we already covered this topic back on page 4 or 5 of this thread.

Andy, did you check to see if any aluminum valley covers work or are close enough to modify to work with the TF heads?

No I didn't. I use a bathtub type valley pan when running std port heads.

Do you ever have to "port" the bathtub valley pans?

Mine had a little overhang on the outside edges of the ports on my CNC ported stealths.

Well it is getting close to that with these TF heads. I'm considering making my own valley plate so I can just run paper gaskets between the intake and the head. I haven't quite figured out how to do it yet so I'll stare at it some more.

It is possible that the bathtub is costing me some power. There is a slight bit of overhang in a few areas but it isn't much.

I opened mine up a bit with the dremel.

Andy years ago after we decided what intake we liked and were going to stick with we would weld a plate across the bottom of our big block intakes. I wish I had one left to post a picture but its not that hard.

Same here........

Me too!

Picked up Fel-Pro Part# 1215 (Kit: High Performance Valley Pan, 4 Intake Gaskets and Distributor Gasket/O-Ring). Haven't installed yet but just laying in place it appears any trimming would be miniscule.

Have done this before but had a problem because I made it from thin Aluminium, with vibration it broke the seals on the block ends. So if your going to make one use about 1/4 ali.

Nice car , any more info you care to share ? More photos . Thanks Gary

Lot of nice info on here.Thanks for sharing.I'm mocking mine up.I just want a street able combo.I have a 470 with 6.535 rods .610 lift, 248/254 @.050 solid roller with Mrl lifters.Going to try a RPM intake and a Victor and M1.Going to run E85 950cfm.It gets hot here in Texas and am having problems when it gets in the upper 90's with my 440 cid!

I took the time to pull out the reverse engineering tool box and measure the location of the TF ports. Turns out that TF doesn't put the ports in a symmetrical location in regards to the bolt holes. The intake gasket as far as I can measure is symmetrical with respect to the bolt holes. One pair of ports on the TF head are shifted over by about 0.032 when compared to the other pair of ports. It is just enough that the gasket doesn't line up correctly.

I would like to either borrow or find the source for said "reverse engineering toolbox".

I was just thinking? how much power would be made if the compression was dropped too say 8:1 and a procharger was added keeping the boost @ or near 10-15lbs?

enough to break a stock block?

Even with a girdle? Those little SB chebbys and fords seem too be holding up...

Andy's example is pushing close to 700 NA...boosted combinations are generally slightly more forgiving than NA, but power potential increases ALOT...

Stock blocks are safe to 700 or so, see the most recent girdle thread:

https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbt...tml#Post1990062

The general consensus is if you think you need a girdle, you might as well step up to an aftermarket block.

This is what I never understand, ask a MoPar guy on here how much a stock block can handle and they will tell you 600 HP. Ask a Chevy guy and they will tell you small and big blocks can take anywhere from 800-1000 HP. I have trouble believing that, and its not a "I'm a MoPar guy so I think they're better" thing. Look at both blocks and tell me which appears stronger, besides the fact that the MoPar stuff has geometry and slower piston on its side. I was also under the impression that Chrysler blocks were cast of a better content iron, but I'm not really sure. Don't get me wrong, I believe the Chevy stuff is pretty durable, much more so than the BOP stuff, and its obvious when you look at the stuff and hold it in your hands. But i'd really just like to get a real, unbiased answer and explanation as to why.

And the Ford stuff don't even get me started, 10 head bolts?!

I am wondering has anyone installed them and found the Quirks , like how much longer the pushrods needs to be than stock , will stock head bolt lengths work, those are the questions that I have of course lengths need to checked but they must know approx. how much longer the pushrods should be for a starting point. I will getting my pair ordered on my next trip to the machine shop. I have been waiting for these for a while ( like most of you) but do we really need to buy Trick flo bolts if we have new ARP's on the shelf ? Im so exited about getting them on I want it to be easy LOL .

The pushrod length will vary depending on the rockers, milling on the block, cam and lifter choice etc.

My pushrods varied by .75" just going from solid, flat tappet to hydraulic roller with my Stealths.

I use a Trickflow adjustable "mockup" rod to get precise length pushrods and order them from Manton.

Yes that has all been sorted out and answered in this thread. You need longer pushrods, the center row of head bolts has to be longer and you need rocker arm studs that are all the same length.

Yea, I'm in the same quandary..... I thought that centrifugal blowers ramped up the boost as the rpms climbed much like a turbo so they were softer on the bottom end parts? What am I missing? The boost doesn't just slam in like a nitrous system does.

The cross-bolted production Hemi and especially the aftermarket big Mopar blocks are substantially better than the standard 2 bolt block. In my opinion the Chevy style 4 bolt main block styles are even better from an engineering standpoint. A stud girdle simply doesn’t upgrade a block to the equivalent of a cross-bolted or 4 main block.

While abrupt “hammering” type loads are harder on parts, there is point where even a “smoother” load is too much. There just isn’t enough material or fasteners in the bottom of a stock 2 bolt Mopar block once the power reaches a certain point.

If I could go back in time and there were one thing I could change on a stock big block Mopar it would be the main cap arrangement and the associated weakness. If there were 2 things I would spread the bores.

Well after a month and a half wait my heads showed up this morning, these things are works of art, now it's time to get the block off to the machine shop.

The stock 440 blocks can and do have main web cracking problems above 600 HP, probally dependent on the tuner and driver
The regular 1972 and later thicker main web 400 blocks can handle a bunch more than that. The very rare 400 "230" casting # winter blocks with the extra thick main webbing can handle a bunch more than the later 400 block do
A new 4 main bolt race block for seruios builds is the best choice

Now someone needs to start casting up blocks.. I could
use a 340 based SB like the R-blocks.. all sorts of
heads out there and not a block to be had

Installed cam #3 today. This cam is a custom grind from Dwayne using Comp HXL and HXX lobes. 264/268 duration with .446/.445 lobe lift. Should have it on the dyno by the end of the week and we'll see what she does.

Also have a modified carb coming from Mark W. I sent him my Holley 950 to have annular boosters installed. We're thinking that the annular boosters will work better with the low RVP unleaded gas and cold temps. So I'll compare that carb to the 850 and 1050 carbs that I've been testing with.

Im sending back the rocker arms I have and looking for some other ones.This is my first Mopar and its turning into a pain. I was looking at some Hugues 15203.I'm building a mild roller 470 and don't wanna spend 1200.

Rocker arms are a common sore point for first time Mopar engine builders! Lots of snake oil and crappy parts and stuff that doesn't fit. It is a minefield for the newby. My Mopar big block book has a chapter on valve trains. If you read that section you might be able to save yourself some grief.

I bought the book and it's packed full of good info, well worth getting your hand's on a copy.

hptuner,
I copied/pasted this thread to a word document and printed it so I could scribble in additional notes, highlight certain points, etc.. As Andy F indicated, it's all in here. The thread is very informative and has been beneficial in helping order all the right parts.

Thanks

This is not pleasant news. Have you talked to TF about this?
I pulled out a 906 head, and the intake ports are symmetrical to the bolt holes within ~0.010", using a caliper. I will assume that the original drawing has them symmetrical within some tolerances to the datums.
I have measured Edelbrock intakes which are much farther off than that. I just measured a Six Pack intake and the ports to bolt hole measured 0.050" different, between front and rear pairs.

But, I would expect a part that is CNCd to be within a few thousandths, front to rear, from port to bolt hole, and only that much because I would give ~0.005" true position tolerance on the tapped holes, if they were drilled.
The CNCd ports should be within 0.001" of whatever datum was used for setup. 0.032", if correct, sounds like an error in production somewhere.

If you don't have any more information, I will certainly give TF a call before I buy.
Robert

Dwayne's cam picked up another 10 hp so the engine is now making 685 hp at 6500 rpm. Getting close to the 700 mark. I'm going to ship the intake off to Wilson for porting and I have another Dominator on order. Not easy making power on these pump gas engines!

The intake manifold gasket issue is a bit of a pain with the TF heads. The TF heads are fully ported so the intake manifold gaskets need to be perfectly located or else they overhang the ports. All I can say is if you're trying to make maximum power with these heads you will be spending a lot of time trying to figure out how to get the intake and the gaskets lined up. If you're just bolting it together for a street engine then don't worry too much, a little overhang one way or the other isn't going to cost you much. But a 700 hp an intake gasket hanging into the port can easily cost 10 or 15 hp.

Well, I'm glad to hear my cam wasn't the low hitter

How I would work around the port alignment issue is to just get away from the OE valley pan gasket. Slightly widen the port opening, and raise the roof a little to allow you to tweak the openings on the manifold to match.
It would require disassembly of the heads, but on a race engine that's not really a big deal.

For a typical s/s deal, just bolt them on and don't worry about it.
As is shown, Andy is making 685hp on pump gas with the mismatch in place.

Almost 700HP on pump gas using a std. port opening head that retails for under 2K!!!!
Now when the MW TF head shows up 750 should be a nice goal....
Brian

Dwayne have you done any extra port work to these heads yet, do you think there is room for improvement? Max wedge style ports?

I didn't read this whole thread, what heads are you running? Do they require standard rockers or offset rockers?
I have a rule with my motors, buy Harland Sharp rockers and never worry about them! But I do know that the offset rockers are considerably higher in price.

Bob I believe they are the standard rocker arm setup as I only been keeping up with Dwayne and Andy post on this thread

"Knock, knock, knockin' on 7's door..."

What rockers do you have now? What is the problem with them? You likely don't need different rockers, and it has nothing to do with snake oil, or what brand of rockers, necessarily. Proper set up is key to any rocker working the way it should. Don't get frustrated with your first Mopar build. Just do your research, and use common sense to separate the gems from the nonsense.

Then I would definitely just buy Harland Sharps and be done with it. B3RE has a nice rocker geometry setup also that would be nice to try.

Anyone who has had their hands on a new TF head take any runner measurements to come up with a MCSA #?

I didn't probe the ports on the set I had here, but they looked fairly roomy inside the intake port. I would suspect the min csa is at the pinch.

I don't think there is any "easy" cfm to be gained with a minor tweak. I could be wrong, and I'm sure someone will do just that and then we'll all know.
There looks to be plenty of meat to make them MW size.
On some heads that really wakes them up(EZ), some it doesn't really do anything(std Victor, SR)unless additional porting is done along with making the port opening bigger.

I didn't check the runners but the port opening is right at 2.80 sq inches. Not a really big port size. I have some SB Chevy heads here with bigger ports. The SBC heads flow 370 cfm!

Here are some pictures that show the port location in respect to the bolt holes. As you can see the port pairs are closer to the outer bolt holes (ruler is metric btw) but they are moved an equal amount left and right. Therefore the ports of both heads still line up.
I was a little worried when Dwayne said that only one pair of ports is shifted but that's not the case.

The paper intake gaskets from the Fel-Pro 1215 valley pan kit line up very nice on my set of heads. The gasket opening is even to slightly larger then the head port opening.

I'd like to see that. The paper gasket lines up on one pair of ports on my head but the other pair of ports is shifted by a little bit. Maybe 0.040 or 0.050. Just enough to cause an issue. Trick Flow might have adjusted their CNC program already?

The fel-pro paper gaskets I have here have the number 90175-1 stamped into them.
If you have the gasket sitting so the number is facing up, the bolt to port spacing is this:
Left end bolt hole edge to edge of number 1/8 port = .750"
Left center bolt hole edge to edge of number 3/6 port = .925"
Right center bolt hole edge to edge of number 5/4 port = .980"
Right end bolt hole edge to edge of number 7/2 port = .695"

On these gaskets( I have at least ten of these here and they are all like this), the bolt holes are shifted about .027 to one end, in relation to the port openings(of the gaskets).
The tin valley covers I checked are properly centered.

Measuring from the outside edges of the end ports is 12.300", with the center of the runner dividers being 9.645" apart.

The Indy SR gasket has the bolt hole spacing as; .690/.920-.920/.690.
Port outer edge to port outer edge is 12.335, with the runner divider center to center also being about 9.645.

I checked a couple of heads here that have CNC'd port openings.
The runner dividers on a Victor head are 9.595 apart, and a std port EZ has them at 9.555 apart.
Interestingly, both an Indy MW gasket and a Mr. Gasket MW gasket have the runner dividers 9.555 apart, whereas the tin valley trays are more like 9.600-9.625.

Maybe one of you guys that has some of these TF heads on hand can check the distance from runner divider center to runner divider center.

I have yet to see anybody measure the heads or a gasket correctly. For instance if you are going to measure bolt or hole locations you must first find the centerline (C/L) then base your measurement off the C/L. How can a comparison be made if hole diameters differ?

There are more wrong ways to measure than right ways. I have seen so many brand name gaskets that are wrong and I've also seen many cylinder heads that have machining inaccuracies. Be it from slop in the table or head of the machine or bad blue print info.

Also you should never use a gasket to base a port match from, it may be wrong.

Maybe y'all should try a different brand gasket
I may know somebody

The distance from runner divider center to runner divider center on my Early casting TF heads is 9.585. I am using the Fel Pro gaskets 90175-1. They and the valley pan measure as you stated. The gaskets openings are slightly larger then the tin valley pan. Putting the gaskets on the head numbers out to the intake manifold side they line up good with the gasket overhanging on the top. If swap the gasket and turn it numbers in, it is shifted on the ports to one side.

Valley pan, Has more overhang in center and top.

Gasket shifted up against intake bolts, lines up very nice.

Roadhazard, What is the distance between the runner divider centers on your gaskets?

The main purpose of the measurements I posted was to show how the port locations on the fel pro paper gaskets were not centered with the bolt holes, and that on the Indy gasket and the tin valley cover they were.
Also how the spread between to runner dividers on the gaskets and the heads don't seem to be on the same page.
You'd think that dimension should be constant........ But it definitely isn't.

Azzkikr, are you saying that all four ports line up good on the paper gasket with the numbers out?

Intake runner divider C/L is 9.615"

I have seen many gaskets from different manufacturers that had a pair of ports shifted one way or the other..... usually wide.

Don't know if they had a math error, stacking tolerances or measured a head that was wack

Center to center on the gasket is 9.583, on the Tin v-pan it is 9.599.
You are right on the bolts holes not being the same distance to the ports on the gaskets, vs the Tin v-pan.

Is that the same for both std port size and MW?

Yes the gasket lines up good on both sets of ports on my heads.
Other side with gasket.

........ and will have more when the bead is compressed

Last one.

I can't believe you guys are still using those dam valley pan gaskets. LOL

LOL Yeah you will not catch me using one, $30 laser cut ali and goo those gaskets to the heads

I concur, those metal bathtub intake gaskets are a PITA!

It would appear from azzkikr's pics that the TF head would also have the ports shifted slightly to one end since all the ports line up when the gaskets are centered on the bolt holes when the numbers are facing out, and don't line up when you flip the gasket over.
Seems like perhaps that's what TF used to determine the port layout/bolt hole relationship?

I certainly hope they did not use dimensions/ spacing from a gasket that may have been wrong.

Here's a good test to see if a pair of intake gaskets are symmetrical, as they should be in this application. Place them back side to back side and try to line up the ports. Also notice any variances in bolt hole locations.

Ours match up exact with only a very slight variance in hole location. I can't tell you how many heads I measured for bolt hole locations and all were different to some degree so I had to "settle" on a figure. Still, the bolts will go in with plenty of room to spare if the gasket needs to be shifted for any reason.

See my post https://board.moparts.org/ubbthreads/ubbt...tml#Post2004008

My ports are symmetrical. I wonder if there are really some Trick Flow heads out there which don't have symmetrical port pairs - or if Trick Flow changed the porting. Mine are of the early type with the hole not filled in (ordered mid-October).

I'm sorry but how do you know for a fact they are moved an equal amount and symmetrical, you're using a square. Yes, the ports are farther away from the inner bolt holes than the outer holes. It's been that way since the inception of the B/RB wedge. The guys here are speaking in terms of .050" or so.

The ports in my TF heads are not symmetrical with the bolt holes. The LH pair of ports is shifted over a little more than the RH pair of ports. Or perhaps the bolt is drilled in the wrong location. Hard to tell without having some sort of fixed datum to measure everything from.

None of the intake gaskets that I have on hand fit properly. I've tried several different mfgs. It isn't a huge problem, most folks probably won't even notice but I've been trying to get the port alignment "perfect" and so I keep futzing with it.

It certainly appears that azzkikr's pairing of that head and that gasket have good gasket to port/bolt alignment for all 4 ports.

I'd be perfectly happy with that if I were putting it together.

The next question will be, how will the ports of the intake manifold line up when it's sitting on the long block?

I can say the fel pro metal bathtub gasket is pretty correct. The composite facing gaskets are wack. My gaskets fit the bathtub gasket well and if Trick Flow based their port and bolt locations off the fel pro composite gasket, they are wrong.

This is why I stated earlier, porting based on a gasket should be avoided.

fast68plymouth do you have a pair of those fel pro's to put back to back and see what I'm talking about?

Oh, I know the fel pro paper gaskets aren't right.
If I stack two of them, numbers facing "out", line the bolt holes up as good as possible, the port mismatch is worse on one end than the other, but is as bad as about .060".

I agree that "if" the TF port to bolt spacing is in fact based in that gasket, then it isn't correct.
It certainly looks like azzkikr's head lines up nicely with one of those gaskets, so it would appear that at least one head is a match for that screwed up gasket.

I would certainly hope that TF did more than just use a gasket to figure where the ports should go,and would use known factory dimentions for the heads, that being said it would also seem to me that Fel-Pro might want to look at their die's and see if there is a problem there, after all I would wonder how many 100's of 1000's of gaskets they have made and how many time's they have been rebuilt over the years.

I would agree that you'd like to think a head manufacturer would use something other than a gasket to determine a port layout for a new head.
That being said, I've seen many many parts brought to market with things done down right wrong, or existing designs "improved" upon that were just a big step backwards(newer style BB Victor head for example). I've shaken my head in wonder more times than I can remember about what someone was thinking when they designed/produced new performance parts.

fast68plymouth, I'd say its just a gasket issue, I bolted that Victor intake on my heads today and it really lines up nice!

Wow! WOW!! Holy crap Batman - I'm back up and running and the power gain on this little A-Body with the Trick Flows is amazing. Well worth the investment!

A big THANKS to everyone again for all the info sharing on this thread - made it easy!

Thanks FireCore (Rick & crew) for building the custom wire set - they work great!

Congrats, Bill!

...now stop scaring my neighbors! LOL!

Good deal! Nice looking engine but that Pep Boys throttle return spring has to go. Send me your address and I'll shoot you a proper Mopar throttle return spring setup.

Andy - PM Sent



GY3 - I'll stop by tomorrow when temps are up

So we have 3 600+ HP cars within a 5 mile radius up and running now.

It should be a fun summer!

I blame Moparts for this sickness as the guys on here make it too easy to select the proper combination of parts.

I have lots of Andy's parts on my car, too!

Looks killer!! Thanks a ton for the opportunity. I remember making those up... Hoping they were going on a cool car... Wow, you blew me away with it.. Thank you. Rick Gorski

I got a ride late yesterday afternoon. I'd ridden in Bill's Dart a few times before and the difference from just swapping heads is crazy!

He definitely needs to get some stickier rear tires!

It is, without a doubt, one of the cleanest Darts I've seen.

Sorry if i missed it, but what did the TF heads replace on that Dart?

IIRC they were bone stock 452 castings..

Not knowing what cam you got in the dart, even so I bet you got 100hp+ increase over stock 452's, I think TF's flow around 300cfm at .500" depending on the bench etc., My old Cuda 440 went from 11.3 with stock 906's to 10.7 with just bolted on 2.14/1.81 906's that prob didn't flow more than 260 if that!!...gotta be 1 of the best 440>470 head out out there up to around the 700hp mark with pump gas CR in current 240 style, wait till they get the 270 MW version out for 500 inchers+

Yes - 452's. The Dart is what I'd consider a mild street build - its a toy - I'm not out to rotate the earth with it.

- 8.75 posi w/3.91 gears
- 3K Converter - BM Transpack
- TTI Headers & Exhaust - X pipe
- Comp Hyd Roller (Cam-Lifters-Rockers)

In this particular case, the Trick Flow Heads were a really nice jump in power. In contrast I recognize the racers weighing in on this thread are trying to find literally every ounce of power they can get = some mixed opinions.

Anyway - I actually printed this thread and have it in the garage in a binder - all the advice/help has been much appreciated

I'm sure that's a huge improvement!!

I have my new clear top valve cover mounted up on the Trick Flow heads for the next round of dyno testing.

Would like a pair of them. Nice work .

Andy do those only fit with a non conventional distributor location?

This one does. The next one I make will work with a distributor.

I've heard that the low deck intake will be available by the end of the month. I'll get one on the dyno as soon as it shows up. The RB intake is available now from Summit but I haven't bought one since I don't have a standard port RB engine to use it on.

Andy, how is the clear top going to be sealed to the rest of the valve cover? I can't tell if you have some sort of gasket in there and don't see any signs of an o-ring or groove.

I will/would be interesting to see in there while the engine ran.

I'll get some gaskets made for it. I also have a stainless steel beauty ring that goes on the top so the bolts aren't riding on the polycarb.

This is a great thread but is there anyone who can confirm Trick Flows claims on a 440 build they claim . Or any other trick flow dyno numbers with different combos?? THANKS

Thanks for the explanation. Being able to see the valve train while running to check for proper oiling and to easily inspect it while not running makes a lot of sense to me. Especially on new engines and parts when things might need some sorting out and extra monitoring.

Yeah, a lot of guys bring engines in with crappy parts on them for dyno testing and something simple like a clear valve cover can help show guys that their parts aren't any good. Some of the really cheap rocker arms don't oil properly but guys don't want to believe that the parts they bought aren't any good.

Looks like fun!
I had my hands on the Trick Flows yesterday for first time--WOW! All I can say is Happy Trails Indy!

Had only one day to dink with these combinations.

Trick Flow 240, .030" over 440, stock stroke, 9.9:1 compression, 850 Mighty Demon, Edelbrock Victor and RPM intakes, Solid roller 238/242 @ .050.

Victor.....

500 lb-ft 3,300-6,100rpm
550 lb-ft 4,500-5,300rpm
562 lb-ft @ 4,800rpm
591 hp @ 5,900rpm


RPM........

500 lb-ft 3,100-5,900rpm
550 lb-ft 3,600-5,200
558 lb-ft @ 4,800rpm
575 hp @ 5,700

Had you run any other heads on that particular motor?

No, brand new build. Have done recent builds very similar but with cleaned up Victor heads and solid/hydraulic flat tappets.

How much lift?

Andy, I got my low deck TF intake in yesterday. Ordered last week. Still have a month or so wait on the heads, but the intakes are available.

Cool deal, I'm going to check to see where mine is. Should be in the mail!

I also sent my Mopar intake to Wilson for porting and it is finished. So I'll be back on the dyno shortly for some intake testing. I have the MP as cast, the MP Wilson, a Victor 383 and the Trick Flow low deck. For carbs I have the 850DP, a 950DP, a 950 Dominator and a 1050 Dominator. So that is probably enough variables for a dyno session.

I'm curious about the ported m1, I noticed the other day the ports are pretty bad from one side of the intake to the other. I compared it to some edlebrocks and as much as people complain about them the eddys were much better.
I'm bummed out, when I received my tf heads I opened one box looked at it and put them on the shelf. Since my rods were backordered I couldn't do much. The other day I opened both to check gaskets on the intake ports and comparee to some intakes. One of my heads was damaged before packing. The boxes are perfect. I have to call and see what can be done.

The M1 intake showed back up from Wilson. As usual they did a super nice job on the porting. The port match appears to be perfect from what I can see and feel.

I would really like to see a video of those clear valve covers on a running engine.
Is this something that can stay on there all the time or just for testing or dyno work? Would they hold up on a street car?
Thanks for the input
Jerry

do they section it to work on it?

Looking forward to seeing the new intake tests.

I wouldn't run them on a street car since I'm sure the polycarb would turn yellow over time. I designed the clear top just for dyno testing. It is nice to prime the engine and see if the oil is flowing on all of the rocker arms. It is also a nice double check to see if oil is spraying out from the rocker arms or just leaking out. You can tell if the side clearance on the rocker arms is correct by how much oil is spraying around. Just an easy way to double check things on a new engine. I don't think there is any need to use the clear covers on an engine that is working properly although maybe someone would like them just for the looks.

I don't think so but I do not know how they get the super nice finish all the way down the runners. The finish is very even everywhere. I don't have the motor skills to do anything close to this type of work.

Hey Andy,

What's something like the cost?

Thanks
Damon

The porting or the billet valve cover with the clear top? Wilson charged me $1000 for the porting on the intake. The machine shop charged me $600 for the valve cover.

Thanks Andy,

I was inquiring about the porting. Appreciate the info.

Damon

Here is an outside shot of a stock intake and then the second picture shows the outside of the ported intake. It appears that Wilson welded up the outside so they could open up the ports. The stock intake has almost an inch between the center runners while the Wilson intake has a V between the runners.

A comparison of the runner inlets shows how Wilson added width and height to the factory runners. The interesting thing is that Mopar could've designed the intake like this in the first place. Now that Mopar has stopped making this intake maybe someone like Trick Flow will take the design and run with it.

Is not the untouched one an RB while the ported one is a B intake?

No, they are both B intakes.

I read the thread and might have missed it but what is compression ratio on dyno mule

Had only one day to dink with these combinations.

Trick Flow 240, .030" over 440, stock stroke, 9.9:1 compression, 850 Mighty Demon, Edelbrock Victor and RPM intakes, Solid roller 238/242 @ .050.

Victor.....

500 lb-ft 3,300-6,100rpm
550 lb-ft 4,500-5,300rpm
562 lb-ft @ 4,800rpm
591 hp @ 5,900rpm


RPM........

500 lb-ft 3,100-5,900rpm
550 lb-ft

What numbers do you think they'd produce on a stock 383 short block??

not sure which engine you're asking about. My 470 has 10.5 compression.

Good info guys! Thank you. I would like to know the seat and open loads of TF "big" 1.56 spring???

1.560" O.D. dual spring with damper (TFS-16318)
240 lbs. @ 2.000" installed height
600 lbs. @ 1.280" open
500 lbs. per inch rate
.700" maximum lift

MD, here is a final picture. There is a gasket between the aluminum body and the lexan and then there is a SST beauty ring that fits over the top. So it is a four piece assembly.

Hey Andy that sure looks sharp.
With 10.5 static compression where do you like to see the intake closing?
Thanks.

Andy, that's a nice looking piece, it should be useful too. Instead of wondering how well the valve train is being oiled it can be verified without running it until parts are either smoked or survive the test of time. Thanks for posting a finished picture.

I haven't trained my brain to think in terms of opening and closing points. I'm more comfortable with duration and lobe angles. The cam that is in there now is 264/268 on 108. It is a good compromise between the 271 on 109 which seemed a little too big, and the 261 on 108 that seemed a little too small.

Yeah that was the idea. And since the local engine guy builds a lot of Mopar big block engines I'll loan him this valve cover so he can use it for dyno testing and engine break in. A lot of times customers bring in random valvetrain parts and we might be able to solve problems up front rather than down the road by double checking the oiling before the engine goes out the door.

Any chance of trying out the TF hyd roller cam? It's smaller than you have been using, but I curious as to how much power it really can make.

Andy - another cool AR product with the clear valve cover. The ported M1 intake looks awesome! Looking forward to the results vs the untouched M1.

Who's rockers are those?

I don't think I'm up for testing that cam. It is 20 degrees smaller than what I'm currently running so I think it would kill off a ton of power. Probably be a smooth running tire frying monster in a street car though.

No problem, They claim 620 HP with the TF heads and that cam on a 10.5:1 440.

The Trick Flow intake showed up today. Nice looking part. It is 1/2 inch shorter than a Victor 383 so that might help some guys with hood clearance issues. Also, the TF doesn't have the "eyebrows" in the plenum that make the Victor intake look so awkward. I'll get it on the dyno in the next couple of weeks and we'll see how it does.

I believe their 620 HP claim. I bet that cam in my 470 would also make about 620 hp. I'm making 685 hp with a solid roller that is 20 degrees larger as well as a Dominator carb. If I used their cam, intake and carb I'd probably be fairly close to 620 hp also.

yeah Andy, whos rockers are those?

Those rockers are made by RAS.

Yep, those are stainless steel investment cast rocker arms from RAS. I don't think they are available anymore. I think they were the very best shaft rocker arms ever made for BB Mopars but they were expensive and rarely in stock. I used to have several sets of them but I've sold everything off but this last set.

The porting that Wilson did on my M1 intake picked up 30 hp. Engine made 715 hp this morning using the same 1050 Dominator that I was running before. Gasket match still isn't perfect so there is probably a little more power hiding in the combo.

Nice, Wilson did a great job. Did the Peak HP rpm change as well? And did you throw on the trick flow intake on afterwards to test that too. I know I would of had to.

No the peak rpm is not moving up. Best pull was 715 hp @ 6500 rpm so the engine seems to be "tuned" for that rpm and isn't changing. I was hoping that the ported intake would move the rpm peak up a few hundred rpm so the power numbers would move up but it didn't happen.

Impressive numbers.
Was there a gain in leak TQ as well?

Is the TF intake going on next?

Did you get another 4500 carb to try? (I can't recall if that was part of the plan)

I like the headers what size are those? They should up the numbers some.

I tried two Dominator carbs. A 950 and a 1050. The 1050 carb made 10 hp more than the 950 carb.

I did also try the new Trick Flow low deck intake. This is a very nice intake, I think it is a better design than the Victor since it doesn't have the big eyebrows in the plenum that the Victor has. I used a new 1050 AN carb from Quick Fuel. This combo made 690 hp @ 6500 rpm.

Pretty impressive gains with the Wilson M1. Almost makes it worth the money

The engine builder I work with does a lot of 420+ inch SBC circle track engines and they typically see 20 to 30 hp increase from intake porting. The circle track guys tend to get their intakes ported but the drag race guys don't.

I'm thinking about getting the Trick Flow intake ported. I'd like to get that combo up over 700 hp also. I think the Quick Fuel 1050 carb is capable so it is just the intake that needs a little help.

Did you try the 1050/4500 on an adapter, on the TF manifold?

The TF intake 1050/4150 combo was 5hp better than the unported M1/4500 combo?

No, I didn't think about that until too late. I didn't take the adapter with me. My guess is that the Dominator on an adapter would've pushed the TF intake up another 10 hp or so.

Is that 1050/4150 one that has the baseplate that will fit either 4150 or 4500 manifolds?
If so, did you try it on the other intake?

I like the valve covers Andy

yes, the QF carb will bolt to either a 4150 or 4500 intake but it doesn't exactly work on a 4500 intake without some other fixes so I didn't run it that way. That would be a good thing to test at some point.

That is my "topless valve cover"! It works pretty well. This engine has a well sorted out valve train so there isn't a lot of oil spraying around. Just 8 streaks of oil on the valve cover. Each rocker arm sprays a small streak of oil on the lid from the roller wheel.

Look's like I have just settled on which intake that I am going to use on my 512, thanks for the time and effort Andy, I have been waiting on this info to help me make up my mind, wish TF made the low deck manifold with the dominator flange, but it looks like I will use my existing 2" spacer and do a little blending.

Did the gap from max torq & max Hp open up at all? Last I seen back in this thread was like only 600 rpm apart iirc.

If you want the most from the adapter, I`d deep blend it into and shape the upper most part of the intake cos the results are awesome..........

Thats exactly my plan.

I would like to see a video of that in action.

To bad you didn't have a M1 tunnel ram to try. Would have be interesting results

I'd like to try a tunnel ram but didn't have any luck finding one. I posted a parts wanted ad but never got any response.

I needed one of my AR372 plates to run the QF 1050 on the Wilson intake but I forgot to take one with me. If you bolt the 4150 carb directly to the M1 intake the linkage hits the manifold. There is also sometimes a leak since the 4150 baseplate doesn't always cover the opening in the 4500 intake.

Andy let me know if you plan on selling the trick flow intake. I had cash the last time I messaged you about parts. Thanks

Does Wilson do port work on other brands of manifolds as well?

I'm pretty sure that if you have the money they'll port whatever your drag in the door. Check out the cool stuff on their website: http://www.wilsonmanifolds.com/

I don't think I'll sell this Trick Flow intake anytime soon. I might be willing to make you a good deal on a very slightly used Victor 383 though.

Andy, I was waiting for someone else too ask and seeing as no one has, I will. What was the stock M1 intake volume compared too the reworked Wilson M1 intake volume? Just wondering as it really picked up after reworking it looks huge inside but it must also be moving plenty of air pretty fast.

Did they give you some type of flow sheet?

I haven't compared intake runner volumes. I have a stock M1 intake here so I'll give that a try. Might be interesting to see the volume difference if I can figure out a way to measure it accurately.

No flow sheet with the intake, never thought to ask them for one. I don't know if they flow them after porting or not.

Grease and some plexglass too block the runners and fill it with some water from the beaker, well a few beakers anyway. I bet the difference in volume between the two is significant.

Andy, what LSA is the cam?
I have my old 264/264 HXL cam on 112 LSA sitting on the shelf if you want to try it?

Thanks Andy!! Mission complete.

Cab was kind enough to loan me a tunnel ram. Not sure when I'll get back on the dyno but when I do I'll give this setup a whirl. These are a pair of 1000 cfm carbs so probably overkill for this little pump gas motor but we'll try it anyway.

I did measure the volume of the intakes. (measured the weight of the water and converted to volume) The stock M1 was 192 cubic inches while the ported version is 213 cubic inches. So an 11% increase in volume due to the porting.

Glad that worked out for you Andy. I'm looking forward to the results. That being said you really to top it off with a pair of CarterBrocks.

thanks Andy ,
I remember filling and measuring my Modman - it was right around 5 litres so just over 300ci . Even after fabbing a filler it was 4 litres . No wonder it was soft down low on the strip with only a 440ci . I will try it on my 505 at some point .

Tex

Thanks, for the follow up.

Anyone running 7/16 pushrods yet with the Trick Flow heads? I mocked it up the other night and it looks like they will clear if the rocker arm is positioned just so.

Hi Guys- as some of you know I'm just about done with this 470 low deck with Trickflows (very similar to AndyF's engine) except with a Comp solid cam from Dwayne P. on a 1.6 rocker. This will be a bracket engine going in my '65 Plymouth.

My question to those who already have these heads running- what rocker arms/ratio are you running? Talking with Andy, there are not alot of available choices. I've mocked up my 1.6 "Harland" copies from Mancini Racing (which are supposed to be identical), but IMO are a tad too long of a sweep pattern starting right on center and running 1/8" on the stem where it starts to round again. Now, according to trickflow, these are the recommended ones- but maybe only in a 1.5 ratio??

I'm thinking the Hughes 1.6 might work (or maybe it's the same length??) If by chance there are a set of old Crane golds in 1.6 floating around- those might work as well (same length too??) Anyone try the PRW stainless 1.6's ??

Once we get this figured out- it's off to the Dyno shop. This set-up should be good for 650 HP/ 625 Ft.Lb.

Ok, here's the deal on the Trick Flows, as far as rockers are concerned.

The Harland Sharp rockers recommended by TF, are way too long, as they are on most heads, and are even worse on the TFs, because they raised the rocker stands .100" from stock. That is a step in the right direction for better rocker geometry, but they didn't offset the stand when they raised it, which reduced the shaft-to-valve centerline by .025". That is why the shorter rockers seem to fit better, but if the shaft is relocated to properly set rocker geometry, any rocker will work.

Since you mentioned the PRW stainless rockers, I am doing a build right now with them, and just like any other roller rocker, I will have to move the shafts to the right location for that combination. You will need to do the same, regardless of the rocker chosen, if you want it to be right.

BTW, assuming a net valve lift of roughly .650", you should have less than .040" sweep across the valve when it is right. If I'm understanding you correctly, you're looking at .125"? No Bueno, Amigo!

The specific HS part number recommended by TF for these heads("E" at the end of part number)are shorter than the std HS rockers and should fit just fine.
The std HS rockers, along with the Mancini version, are too long.

IMO, this was a mistake made by TF when these things were on the drawing table.
They should have had the shafts located so that the std HS rockers fit properly.

They might fit just fine, but a shorter fulcrum sweeps more, so it will actually sweep slightly more. Still no good.

Hughes 1.60 rocker arms

Harland rocker arms (long ones, not the E)

Crane 1.60 rocker arm. Short style, discontinued.

Andy, retry that with the 700lbs open pressure to show the "loaded" ratio.

Is that on a .450 lobe?

....i used mikes relocation kit with my HS 1.5s that i already had
seemed to be the best and most economical solution?

0.445 to be exact and zero lash. I'll recheck once I get the new springs installed. I was using a checking spring so I could verify VP with the new ratios. I'm good to go to 1.70 rocker arms with this cam. I just need to find someone who sells a high quality 1.70 rocker arm that fits the Trick Flow head.

I would say a head might have to make it's way to T&D for that.

The pic of the scrub pattern with the RAS rockers on page 10 of this thread looks pretty good to me.

Yep

Here is a pic of a set of custom T&D rockers for a 64 Max Wedge Stock Eliminator motor. I had Brad at T&D make them to my spec, but they still had to have the shafts relocated. The rocker isn't the whole story.

I could call him today and tell him what I needed for the TF heads, and he could draw it up and make a set, without me having to send a head. The shaft would still have to be raised for anything under roughly .800" lift".

Without actually measuring or doing the math, how can you tell how good the scrub or sweep really is?

It doesn't need to be perfect to work okay. I'd run that in a heartbeat and never worry about it.

I agree. The scrub pattern from the RAS rocker arms is about as good as it gets. Kind of ironic that a rocker arm which isn't even available anymore has the best pattern on the new Trick Flow heads. I'm just glad I held on to these rocker arms over the years.

the "1/8" sweep was a quick reference. It measured roughly .048 BTW. Thanks for all the info. Looks like I might try some hughes 1.6's from Andy. I will report then. ~B

I've been trying out a set of the MRE 1.60 rocker arms and they look pretty good on these heads. With my 0.445 lobe they are .737 with a checking spring and .702 with a real spring. So 1.66 ratio with a checking spring and 1.58 with 700 lbs of load. With a flat tappet spring I'm sure they would be 1.60 or more. Seems to be plenty of clearance everywhere and the oiling passages look good. I haven't run the engine yet but I don't see any reason not too.

A .08 ratio loss under load seems really high to me. I'll have to recheck my Hughes' ratios with the real springs installed, since they measured 1.58 (1.6 advertised offset intake) and 1.50 (1.50 advertised std exhaust) with checking springs.

Well these springs are around 700 lbs over the nose which is probably more than what the mfgs check with. My guess is they use a flat tappet type spring for their measurements but I don't really know.

I'd be interested to see what you find with your Hughes rocker arms, especially if they were 1.58 with a checking spring.

My actual springs are 240 closed & ~600 open, so I'm sure they're going to drop more.

Have you measured pushrod deflection in this?

I don't know anyway to do that.

Looking at my question again, it is poorly worded. What I meant to ask is "Have you checked and/or measured lift loss due to pushrod deflection?"
It just seems to me that the long, skinny pushrod is more likely to bend than the beefy short rocker arm, even with the addition forces.
Thanks again for the work you are doing. I've bought your book and it is a great resource, even for an A-Body guy like me.

Maybe mount indicator in center of pushrod, reading off a parallel fixture (parallel to the pushrod), then compare the in/out motion with checking springs vs. the actual springs? Just need to keep the pushrod from rotating.

the pushrod is going to move based on just the pivoting of the arm, don't think any measurement would be accurate.

probably would jsut have to put some really stiff pushrods in and see if net lift increased...

To measure the pushrod deflection I think a person would need to weld a tab to the top of the pushrod and then measure the lobe lift at the end of the pushrod. If the pushrod is rigid then the travel at the end should be the same as the lobe lift.

My SST rocker arms show about 0.020 loss of lift while the aluminum ones show about 0.030 loss. If I had to guess I'd say the pushrod is accounting for 0.010 of the deflection and the SST rocker arm is 0.010 while the aluminum is 0.020. I can double check with a 7/16 pushrod at some point. A 7/16 pushrod is roughly twice as stiff as a 3/8 pushrod so if my numbers are correct I'd pick up about 0.005 lift with a 7/16 pushrod.

My bad, You want to measure the loss of lift due to deflection. I was thinking of the amount the pushrod bows in/out.

I don't think you can measure how much a pushrod bends in an engine since there is a lot of stuff in the way plus the pushrod moves around as the rocker arm moves.

You can set up a test rig with a hyd cylinder pushing on a pushrod. Put about 1000 lbs of load on the pushrod and use a dial indicator at the center to see how much the pushrod bends. They aren't going to bend a bunch, maybe a few thousands or so.

Hughes Engines did a deep port match on my Trick Flow intake. Just got it back and it looks pretty good. I think it will pick up a little power, guess we'll find out in a few weeks.

One way that may work is an indicator on the end of adjuster screw. Check with light springs and then actual springs. the difference will reflect the displacement lost due to deflecting (bowing) of the push rod.

You are not interested in what the bow of the push rod is, just how much rocker movement is being lost.

John

So has anyone tried the Harlan Sharp S70015KE rocker set yet? those are the one's that TF says are the ones to use, curious about the geometry with those and they are about $230.00 more than the S70015K's according to Summit. really like to know because thats my next purchase for the motor.

Here are some pics of PRW stainless rockers on Trick Flows. The geometry is perfect. If the rocker will fit under the valve cover, it can be "adjusted" to have perfect geometry also, at least on the valve side. The Harlands are not going to be better than any other rocker when just bolted on.

I'll have some of the Harland Sharp E rocker arms in a couple of week to try on the Trick Flow heads. From what I've seen so far they'll work just fine.

You dont concern yourself with that gap on the
bottom of your shim.. seems it will try and spread
the stand and split it or crack it off

just how good of quality are these rockers besides being good geometry wise, will they hold up to the rigors of a bracket motor? and what about service after the sale, never heard of this company is why I ask.

Nope, not at all concerned. There is no gap, just a little high tack to hold them in place when installing the shafts. If they were shims, I would definitely be concerned about splitting the stands, but they are billet spacers, not flat shim stock.

Sure is contacting on the corner and not on the bottom...
I buy those tapered spacers all the time at Mancinis...
.030 out to 0 at the ends... maybe your are thicker

You're kinda missing the point here. I'm not trying to talk you into running PRW rockers. What I'm trying to explain, is that all roller rockers need to have the geometry set, because it is not built into the rocker. You may find a rocker that fits on the head with the roller perfectly centered when the valve is on the seat, but that isn't good geometry. Nether is a centered sweep when the sweep is excessively wide. The pic is of a 505 pump gas street build with a .585" lift hydraulic roller and with that rocker, it has .029" sweep across the valve tip. The fact that it is centered, is because I offset the shaft accordingly when I raised the it to minimize the sweep.
FWIW, I avoid rockers that use ball style adjusters. I know that makes me a heretic, but I know the negative effect they have on pushrod side geometry. I'll just have to live with the shame.

I know it looks like a gap, Mike, but the dark area is just where the high tack squeezed out when the shafts were tightened. Probably had too much on it, but my high tack is starting to dry out some and getting a little thick.
My spacers are always thicker than .030". I've had them as thick as .345", but the thinnest has been .075". The ones in the pic happen to be .100". It just depends on what the math says it needs to be for a given application.

not really missing the point, just asking about quality, I get it about having to adjust the shaft height to bring it all together, but it's been noted that some rockers are longer or shorter from fulcrum centerline to tip centerline,wouldn't using ones that are more correct in that respect be easier to start with?

Yes it would, but I don't know of any that are as short as they should be. The custom T&Ds I mentioned in an earlier post were made with a shorter fulcrum length so they wouldn't require additional offset. Considering that when the shaft is raised, the shaft and valve get closer together, you have to offset the shaft to make up for it. Any extra length of the rocker fulcrum, means additional offset to make up for that length. That starts causing issues with pushrod clearance in the head in many cases. Higher rocker ratios will help some with clearance, but not usually enough to avoid grinding.
In the case of the Trick Flows, they raised the stands .100", but didn't offset the stands any, so the rocker requirements are shorter yet. Since I am a Trick Flow dealer, I'm going to talk with their engineering department about some possible adjustments. It's nothing major, so hopefully they will be open to that adjustment.

I sent one of my TF heads to T&D a few weeks back. Sounds like they can do a 1.70 ratio kit that bolts in. To go higher than 1.70 they said they would need to machine off the stands and use an offset shaft.

Harland Sharp also said they could do a 1.70 rocker arm based on their E rocker. I ordered a set of those and should have them before the end of the month.

Andy, those 1.6 Hughes rockers worked out slicker than snot! Pushrods are 8.80" on the low deck 470. I also put on the tool steel retainers Comp # 1732-16. Dyno time is early next week.

Good deal, glad they worked out for you. I think the pushrods on my engine were around 9.0 inches but I probably have different lifters than you. The tool steel retainers should be a good choice. Good luck on the dyno.

Anyone have any issues with the Trick Flow head stud kit. As the are I will have to clearance my header flange to clear the studs. They could have been a good 1/4 to 3/8 shorter.

Yes that has been a problem for a long time. I covered the solution in my big block book and I told ARP about it and I told Trick Flow about it but nobody seems to listen?

I dynoed this 505 build on Monday, and I was pretty happy with the results.

Just to set the stage, the customers demands were that it:
1-Make 600 Hp
2-Be easy to drive
3-Run on pump 93
4-Fit under a stock hood
5-Sound rowdy and mean. (I had to talk him back from the edge on this one)

The application was a '70 RT/SE Challenger with a 727, 2800 advertised stall, 3.91 gear, that will be mostly cruised to and from car shows. He told me the only reason he wanted 600 Hp is because someone else told him that's what he should shoot for. Okey dokey!

I pretty much built a similar combo to what Trick Flow advertises for their dyno results. Here are the differences:
Cam is similar at 242/248, but less lift at .585" vs .600", and a different lobe separation.
Compression is 10.1:1 vs 10.5:1.
Cubic inches are 505 vs 446.
Intake manifold is a low dual plane with a 1" open spacer vs a tall single plane.
Carb is a 1000 cfm Holley with annular boosters vs the 950 Trick Flow.
The only plusses to this combo, over the Trick Flow, is the cubic inches, and the bigger carb. The cubes make more torque, but horsepower stays about the same at a lower RPM. The carb could have been a little bigger yet but worked beautifully for this combo. Everything else, theoretically, should cost power.

Results:
617 Hp @ 5600 rpm
656 Tq @ 4000 rpm

The torque was 627 at 3500 where the pulls were started, and stayed over 600 through 5300 rpm. I'm certain it would have been over 600 at 3000 but we ran out of time to do additional pulls at lower rpms. With more time, I think we could have picked up a few more but we didn't need to be greedy. That brings me to a question.

Has anyone had any trouble with the Trick Flow heads not purging the air from the cooling system? We spent all morning trying to get the motor to stop running too warm during the warm up before starting pulls. I had the same trouble running it on my test stand before going to the dyno, and once the air gets out it is fine. It just seemed to take a long time. I had to run for some parts, and left the electric pump run for about an hour on my test stand, and it still didn't clear the air.