Trick Flow 270 Heads

I'm starting to put another engine together, and considering the Trick Flow 270 heads. What is the go-to rocker shaft system to use on them?

Harland Sharp is a good choice and budget friendly rocker, bought my first set in -91.

https://www.summitracing.com/parts/csp-s70016ke/make/chrysler

Im running Crane 1.5s on mine

Tex

Thanks for that input guys--I was thinking that the 270s would take a rocker similar to the ones used on the Edelbrock Victor heads, which have more offset away from the intake port. I guess the 270s take a rocker with a more standard configuration?

Correct, they use standard offset rockers. Trick Flow recommends the E suffix standard offset Harland Sharps that were designed for the Edelbrock RPM head.

Trick Flow designed the 270 heads to accept a standard offset rocker. I highly recommend using T&D rockers if you're building a race engine and you are going to run a solid roller cam. If you are running a hyd roller cam then you can use a less expensive rocker setup. For street use I'd go with the Comp Cams steel rockers.

Again agree with Andy. T&D would be my choice.

I did a lot of dyno testing with the 270 heads when they first came out. Made close to 800 hp with a pump gas 470 using the TF270 heads. I tested a lot of different rocker arms. They all worked just fine but the T&D were by far the best setup in terms of quality, fit and function. Here is an article where I used a fairly aggressive cam lobe with the Comp dual conical valve springs and a set of 1.65 ratio T&D rockers. I think the engine was making around 750 hp in this configuration. https://www.motortrend.com/articles/dyno-tested-dual-conical-valve-springs/

Here is the rocker arm test article: https://www.motortrend.com/articles/trying-find-extra-power-rocker-arm-testing/

The rocker arm testing was done on TF240 castings but the fit is exactly the same on the TF270 heads. I transferred parts back and forth between the 240 and 270 castings without any issues.

I also recommend the T&D's....Very nice step up from the others.

Andy, I enjoyed both of those articles--Great equipment and well presented. I'm a little surprised that the higher ratio rockers didn't make very much difference. A few questions--

1. Do the T&D rockers maintain their side-to-side clearance with different sizes of "sleeves" on the shaft or are there some thin shim washers in there that I couldn't see?

2. How many different rocker ratios did you test? Looks like 2 or 3 different manufacturers.

3. On the Summit website the Trick Flow 270s show a max valve lift of .680. Different valve springs needed to accommodate higher lift camshafts?

4. You mentioned that I should pressure test my block. How is that done? Block off water pump holes and bolt a set of heads on? What PSI to test to?

Thanks!

I used comp irons, had to mill the stands a bit to get alignment and side clearance right then use a B3 correction kit to fix the valve tip sweep.

I tested four ratios, 1.5, 1.6, 1.65 and 1.70. We're not sure why the engine didn't pick up power with the additional ratio but what we think is that the cam lobe was as fast as it needed to be at 1.50 so the higher ratio was just wasting energy by opening faster than what the engine needed. There is only so much air that is going to flow into that size of port in a certain amount of time. In this case evidently the valve action wasn't the "cork" in the system. With some testing we probably could've found a slower cam lobe that did require a high ratio rocker arm to work correctly. So if we ran the dyno tests with a slower cam lobe we probably would've picked up power every time we added rocker ratio. That is what you would want to do if you were selling high ratio rocker arms.

The T&D rockers use spacers between the rocker arms. I don't recall any shims but perhaps there is a thin shim between the rocker arm and the spacer.

Yes, if you are going to go past 0.680 then you'll need to change springs. If that is the case then you might want to think carefully about which head to buy. I'd buy the heads with the springs that are easiest to sell which is probably the hyd roller heads. Then you pull those springs and sell them and buy the springs that you need. Or just go ahead and buy the solid roller heads and sell the existing springs, but keep the good retainers and locks. If you look at my for sale ads in the race section you can see that I'm selling new parts which I didn't need. Most likely because I did this exact trick.

I used to sell pressure checker kits for BB and Hemi engines. I stopped selling them but I have a few on the shelf if you need on. It is a very simple tool. Bolt on a head with a good head gasket and then fill the block with water at least half full and then hit it with a little bit of air. I wouldn't go more than a few psi. Whatever your radiator cap is rated at is a good limit.

FYI,
The Trick Flow valley plate is back in stock at Summit. O-ring seal on the removable center cover (for lifter maintenance, etc.).
Trick Flow® Valley Plates TFS-61600830

And Summit shows 0.700" max valve lift with the solid roller heads, TFS-6161T784-C01. And if you look at the PAC springs that come with them, you can likely run a tiny bit more. But check actual installed height, coil bind, lash, etc.

Thanks for that info Jim--I did see that I was looking at the specs on heads that they were selling for a hydraulic roller motor. The solid roller heads will probably fit my needs. And I love the removeable valley covers, especially if equipped with clear Lexan. We recently detected a cracked cylinder wall in my current motor after noticing some condensation forming on the Lexan cover.

Those Trick Flow valley pans are very sexy but bear in mind they don't work on an RB, only a B, according to Trick Flow's website. (You didn't say which one you were building.)

I've been running low-deck motors, but this Keith Black block I got is a RB. Hmmmmm.....

Trick Flow has both B and RB valley covers and so does Indy. I used to build them too but I stopped making them after Trick Flow introduced theirs.

Yep, I have a couple of yours

Everything Andy makes is sexy. I have many of his items.

The most power I made on that 470 was 775 hp with the TF270 heads. That was with flat top pistons and pump gas. To pick up the extra power I switched over to a Wilson ported Indy intake. The OOTB Indy intake didn't work all that great but once Wilson worked it over it made really nice power. Cost a ton of money but that is how it goes. We ditched the dry sump system and switched to a wet sump setup using a high end Moroso pan and an external belt driven oil pump. The oil pump has a vacuum pump mounted on the rear of it so they were both driven by the same belt. Kind of a cool setup but once again, kind of expensive. Anyway, with the vacuum cranked up to 15 inches the engine hit 775 hp which is pretty good for those heads.
We built a drag race 505 with the TF270 heads. Big roller cam, high compression, etc. but it didn't make as much power as my pump gas 470. Not sure why, probably because the camshaft wasn't "perfect". I did a fair amount of camshaft testing with the TF heads and they are picky about what they want. Duane can steer you in the right direction if you decide to use TF heads.
https://www.motortrend.com/articles/dyno-tested-vacuum-pump-help-engine-make-power/

I've never seen the TF 270's,

How do they get around a pushrod Pinch without using an Offset Rocker? It's hard to believe they can get the Intake port to flow what they do (and better with porting) without one.

My Chapman MW's used a .485" offset rocker...and that was after relieving the outside walls a bit. (~.550 would be ideal)

As I understand it, the TF270's flow roughly about the same (Mine flow 285 @.400,335 @ .500 and 360 @ .600) without an offset and only a 2.19" intake valve?

I was wondering the same thing. My Edelbrock Victor heads have offset rockers, and the pushrods still rub a bit on the intake port before some careful clearancing. Not a lot of room there.

I don’t understand the questions……..TF 270’s don’t require rockers with additional offset.

In the same way MW Indy EZ’s and SR’s don’t.

Not really a question, just wondering how they seem to get ~360CFM so easily.

But I haven't seen the ports up close so wondering how they get the same flow numbers that used to Take an Offset rocker to get. I would liken the TF270's to compare more to an Indy -1 than the non-offset rockers in terms of flow.

Can an EZ-1 flow on par with them with porting these days...affordably?

it seems like they must corner the market just on the bolt-on savings of not needing special Rocker gear alone.

If i could get those flow numbers almost 20 yrs ago (when I built mine) without special dog leg Intake rockers and also have a straighter angle between the Lifter and Rocker...I sure would have at least considered them.

I've been out of the BB stuff (not out just paying a lot less attention to it) for a while, just trying to get back acclimated.

EZ295’s and SR295’s can both flow 360 with a decent valve job and some minor tweaking.
I’ve also hand ported both into that flow range.
Std rockers.

As for cost, nothing gets that close in flow for what the 270’s cost.

Great idea.
I may have to make a Lexan cover to replace the removable center section.

The TF270 heads are the easiest and cheapest way to build if you're shooting for 700 to 750 hp. Especially if you go with the new Trick Flow 4500 intake.
The Indy EZ and SR head will also make that power but they cost a little bit more and require a little bit more work. If you're shooting for 800+ hp then best to start with a bigger head. I think the TF270 heads will make 800, but it would be a lot easier to just start with a 440-1 head if 800+ is your goal.

It would be interesting to get some measurements of all the port areas. Since the head uses the same intake seat as their Ford 385(429-460) head, a bigger intake valve, throat and bowl work, with a shrunken exh. valve might prove interesting.

It sux that a good block to support 900-950 HP and live is $6k.