I have a blue thunder thor headed 638" 15.7 to 1 comp full dry sump, 2 pro system dominators.HRE sheetmetal intake.Not sure on all the cam specs but I think it is around 950 lift.IDT block.crower rotating assembly. Getting ready to put this thing on the dyno. What are some of you other guys getting out an engine of this type. What can I expect to see?
BBF638
It will have alot to do w/head flow and how well the cam and the rest o the engine was spec'ed out. If done right :idea: 1200 hp jmg Rick
Jon Kaase made 2 Hp / CID with his Thor headed 2 X 4 engine. We've dynoed a Thor headed engine, but that was a single plane 1 X 4 combo, so that doesn't help answer your question.BBF638 said:
On a Profiler # 205 headed 638, 2 X 4 sheet metal deal, the Kentucky Krew made 1.957 Hp / CID, so I'm thinking somewhere between 1.95 and possibly higher with your Thor headed deal.
Let us know,
BBF 638,
It's ironic that your Thor heads flowed 582 - 585 cfm on the intakes. Likewise I had a Thor Gen II head on display at the Winter Tech Seminar that we had just finished up and all 8 of it's intake ports averaged 582.4 cfm. So I believe that those are certainly valid numbers.
As you know the Profiler #205 headed engine was a BB Ford. Profiler used to call these heads the C-460 Replacement heads. I've done several sets of them and again had one of them on display at the Winter Tech Seminar. The intake volume on them is about 50 cc's less than the Thors 470 ccs. They flow right around 550 cfm give or take a few.
On a comparable equal size BIG engine, the Thors will make 35 Hp more than the Profilers. A person's choice of which head to use, IMO is based on what CID size engine he is going to use them on, and that's going back and relating to the cc volume of the intake runners.
It's ironic that your Thor heads flowed 582 - 585 cfm on the intakes. Likewise I had a Thor Gen II head on display at the Winter Tech Seminar that we had just finished up and all 8 of it's intake ports averaged 582.4 cfm. So I believe that those are certainly valid numbers.
As you know the Profiler #205 headed engine was a BB Ford. Profiler used to call these heads the C-460 Replacement heads. I've done several sets of them and again had one of them on display at the Winter Tech Seminar. The intake volume on them is about 50 cc's less than the Thors 470 ccs. They flow right around 550 cfm give or take a few.
On a comparable equal size BIG engine, the Thors will make 35 Hp more than the Profilers. A person's choice of which head to use, IMO is based on what CID size engine he is going to use them on, and that's going back and relating to the cc volume of the intake runners.
Ted at engine systems has built many thor headed combo's from 600 in to 650 inch and he told me that 600 will make 1200 easy and he made 1306hp on a 650 with a single carb.
A little more info from the engine builds section:
Profiler Heads
Courtesy of Charlie Evans
The web site says 524 cfm @ .900" lift and goes on to say that this can vary some depending on the valve job and etc. The set I showed Dave I had just finished, and they flow an average of 546.6 cfm @ .900" lift, and 360 cfm on the exhausts @ .900' lift without a test pipe. Of course they flow even more at .950 and 1.000" lifts. Profiler says this is a "cast as ported" head, which it is, however I assure you that if you don't port them, you're leaving some on the table. The flow numbers from another shop, for an unported set, weren't all that great.
The Profiler site also says you can run stainless steel valves, but I sure wouldn't. At this level we're talking titanium valves all the way. We're getting better flow numbers out of them (Profilers) with the 420 cc port, than either of the sets of flow numbers that E.T. Performance gives for their 400 cc port, or their bigger 440 cc port Thor heads, so I really like the heads.
I've also had my hands on a couple of different E-460 Pro Stock heads and we've flowed them. Surprisingly the 1.000" flow numbers of the Profiler heads are not too far behind the 1.000" flow numbers of the E-460 heads. The Profilers use a 2.450" intake whereas the E-460 heads have a 2.520" intake, so that's certainly a part of it. Just call me if you have any other questions.
Profiler Heads
Courtesy of Charlie Evans
The web site says 524 cfm @ .900" lift and goes on to say that this can vary some depending on the valve job and etc. The set I showed Dave I had just finished, and they flow an average of 546.6 cfm @ .900" lift, and 360 cfm on the exhausts @ .900' lift without a test pipe. Of course they flow even more at .950 and 1.000" lifts. Profiler says this is a "cast as ported" head, which it is, however I assure you that if you don't port them, you're leaving some on the table. The flow numbers from another shop, for an unported set, weren't all that great.
The Profiler site also says you can run stainless steel valves, but I sure wouldn't. At this level we're talking titanium valves all the way. We're getting better flow numbers out of them (Profilers) with the 420 cc port, than either of the sets of flow numbers that E.T. Performance gives for their 400 cc port, or their bigger 440 cc port Thor heads, so I really like the heads.
I've also had my hands on a couple of different E-460 Pro Stock heads and we've flowed them. Surprisingly the 1.000" flow numbers of the Profiler heads are not too far behind the 1.000" flow numbers of the E-460 heads. The Profilers use a 2.450" intake whereas the E-460 heads have a 2.520" intake, so that's certainly a part of it. Just call me if you have any other questions.
i talked to abunch of people and they said the profiler wasn't much better than the c-head that's why i went with the c-head for the diff. in money the pro filer wasn't any better ''and money wasn't a problem at the time'' i had my c heads cnc'd and the guy that done them had a **** load of time in them and got 534 out of the intake. witch is soppose to be unheard of out of c heads. whats the most the avarage guy gets out of the c head? thors ''new'' was unavalabe when i bought my heads.
No doubt, 534cfm out of a C460 head is impressive. However, I'd be more interested in the mid-lift numbers, than the maximum flow numbers. How do they do at.500", .600", etc. We all tend to get caught up in the big flow numbers(myself included) when we should probably be more concerned about the whole package, not just peak numbers. If your C's are doing a good job, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Having said that, if I was starting from scratch today, I'd buy the Profilers and have Charlie work his magic on them!bbf604 said:
bbf604,
Your C-460 heads sound like they are excellent heads. If memory serves me correctly, those are the ones Steve Vance did and like you say, he must have put a lot of time in on them. I feel confident that he did a fine job, but I suspect that the 535 cfm was in part due to steep valve angles also. Have you actually run this engine yet? What kind of power is it making?
One of the advantages of the Thor heads and the Profiler heads is that they have CuBe seats which are "softer" and more compatible with titanium valves and the steep valve angles. As you would expect the CuBe seats are more expensive!
The C-460 heads at one time had tungsten iron seats and now have ductile iron seats. I've had to replace the tungsten iron seats on new C-460 heads from the git-go, in order to run titanium valves. The ductile iron seats are a little more forgiving and work better with the titanium valves, and I don't have to replace them. If a person were to run the steep angle valve job on the ductile iron seats, it would probally be wise to use the DLC coating on the valves, in order for them to have a longer life. This was thoroughly explained by Jeff Jones at our Winter Tech Seminar. The DLC coating is around $38 per valve.
So,,,,,usually what I do is run the steep angle valve jobs on the CuBe seats, like on the Thor head and the Profiler head that I had on display at the Seminar. Then on the C-460 heads I use a 45* valve job. Most of the time, my CNC ported C-460 heads flow an honest 500 cfm on the intakes, but like what Nevs, said above, I'm really more interested in what they flow at 70% of the net camshaft lift. We can get higher peak flow numbers if we use the steep angle valve jobs, but IMO that would require other changes, either CuBe seats, or the DLC coating on the valves, with the C-460 combo.
To answer the rest of your question, about "the average guy" I have had C-460 heads come in here, and the owner had them ported and flowed elsewhere, told they were flowing 518 cfm,,,,and when I flow them on our bench, they barely flow 480 cfm. So with flow numbers, it seems that some people brag, and some people tell the truth, and you have to take it all with a grain of salt.
If you want to see some Profiler # 205 heads, (since you're in Ohio), may I suggest a trip down to the plant. Profiler is located in New Carlise, OH, which is just northeast of Dayton.
Hope this helps,
Your C-460 heads sound like they are excellent heads. If memory serves me correctly, those are the ones Steve Vance did and like you say, he must have put a lot of time in on them. I feel confident that he did a fine job, but I suspect that the 535 cfm was in part due to steep valve angles also. Have you actually run this engine yet? What kind of power is it making?
One of the advantages of the Thor heads and the Profiler heads is that they have CuBe seats which are "softer" and more compatible with titanium valves and the steep valve angles. As you would expect the CuBe seats are more expensive!
The C-460 heads at one time had tungsten iron seats and now have ductile iron seats. I've had to replace the tungsten iron seats on new C-460 heads from the git-go, in order to run titanium valves. The ductile iron seats are a little more forgiving and work better with the titanium valves, and I don't have to replace them. If a person were to run the steep angle valve job on the ductile iron seats, it would probally be wise to use the DLC coating on the valves, in order for them to have a longer life. This was thoroughly explained by Jeff Jones at our Winter Tech Seminar. The DLC coating is around $38 per valve.
So,,,,,usually what I do is run the steep angle valve jobs on the CuBe seats, like on the Thor head and the Profiler head that I had on display at the Seminar. Then on the C-460 heads I use a 45* valve job. Most of the time, my CNC ported C-460 heads flow an honest 500 cfm on the intakes, but like what Nevs, said above, I'm really more interested in what they flow at 70% of the net camshaft lift. We can get higher peak flow numbers if we use the steep angle valve jobs, but IMO that would require other changes, either CuBe seats, or the DLC coating on the valves, with the C-460 combo.
To answer the rest of your question, about "the average guy" I have had C-460 heads come in here, and the owner had them ported and flowed elsewhere, told they were flowing 518 cfm,,,,and when I flow them on our bench, they barely flow 480 cfm. So with flow numbers, it seems that some people brag, and some people tell the truth, and you have to take it all with a grain of salt.
If you want to see some Profiler # 205 heads, (since you're in Ohio), may I suggest a trip down to the plant. Profiler is located in New Carlise, OH, which is just northeast of Dayton.
Hope this helps,
" Not sure if it is possible. But does not hurt to dream."
Certainly possible with the correct combination. Here is a copy of a "Top Secrete" dyno sheet from a premier engine builders 632" (Brand X) engine. It belongs to a friend of mine.
Pro-Filer heads, 55 mm cam, between .900-.950" gross lift, 116* lobe sep. Can't tell ya anymore, well I could but then I'd have to .......( you know the rest)
![Image]()
I hope you can achieve 1,300+ that would be very cool.
I probably cut you short at 2.15 hp/cfm. I know a guy with a very efficient 468 (Brand X) he achieved 2.4 hp/cfm with two dommies and a cast intake. Your "Mountain Motor" won't be as efficient but if you can achieve 2.3 hp/cfm you'd make 1,338 hp... that would be sweet.
G-Code
Certainly possible with the correct combination. Here is a copy of a "Top Secrete" dyno sheet from a premier engine builders 632" (Brand X) engine. It belongs to a friend of mine.
Pro-Filer heads, 55 mm cam, between .900-.950" gross lift, 116* lobe sep. Can't tell ya anymore, well I could but then I'd have to .......( you know the rest)
I hope you can achieve 1,300+ that would be very cool.
I probably cut you short at 2.15 hp/cfm. I know a guy with a very efficient 468 (Brand X) he achieved 2.4 hp/cfm with two dommies and a cast intake. Your "Mountain Motor" won't be as efficient but if you can achieve 2.3 hp/cfm you'd make 1,338 hp... that would be sweet.
G-Code
Can you share any other cam specs with us ?
Good luck on the dyno. As Builtitrace and I stated somewhere around 2.3 hp per Cfm of head flow should be doable. I've built three single carb smblks that made 2.1 hp/cfm my 565 is just a tad under that at 2.08 I'm hoping it will do about 2.15 if I get it back on the dyno this Winter ( 967 hp single carb).
Once again good luck.
G- Code
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
