460 Ford Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Next Topic >> Return to Index

CYLINDER HEADS
October 20 2004 at 5:51 AM S. Leonard (Login 1961GALAXIE)
from IP address 64.238.254.122

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

Hey guys lets post all CYLINDER HEAD info here!

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
64.238.254.122 HAND PORTED EX 514 INFO FROM CHARLIE EVANS October 21 2004, 1:48 PM


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

Hey Guys,

I'll keep this one short. I've been porting a lot of heads the last few weeks and here is some flow data on the EX 514 heads. These are hand ported and the valve sizes are In = 2.35 and Ex = 1.900.

Intakes: .100=70, .200=148, .300=225, .400=296, .500=359, .600=405, .700=435, .750=442, .800=447, .850=457 cfm @ 28" H2O.

Exhaust; .100=67, .200=116, .300=154, .400=190, .500=229, .600=268, .700=298, .750=308, .800=317, .850=324 cfm @ 28" H2O, WITHOUT a test pipe.

I wouldn't consider these heads done, but the numbers are representative of other ported EX 514 heads that I've seen.

Hope this helps, Charlie




Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
64.238.254.122 TRICK FLOW STREET INFO FROM CHARLIE October 21 2004, 1:58 PM


Hey Guys,

This post is about flow data with the Trick Flow Street Heads, they are in what I call the CJ Family of heads. Mike's heads have worked their way through here and will be shipped out Monday. They were assembled heads and the casting quality is excellent. The valve job to bowl transition was done by a CNC machine,not a bowl cutter, so that transition is really smooth. Intake valves are 2.200" and exhaust are 1.760". Chamber cc's were 72.

TFS gives the flowing flow numbers in there spec sheet.
Intakes; .100=72, .200=152, .300=219, .400=280, .500=320, .600=344, .700=350 cfm @ 28" H2O
Exhaust; .100=60, .200=110, .300=145, .400=180, .500=204, .600=225, .700=240 cfm @ 28" H2O

My baseline numbers on the heads out of the box were.
Intakes; .100=66.5, .200=143.8, .300=211.3, .400=274.8, .500=325.3, .600=351, .700=351.3, .750=351.8 cfm @ 28" H2O.
Exhaust; .100=50.5, .200=99.8, .300=138, .400=168.5, .500=193.3, .600=211.3, .700=222.5, .750=226.8 cfm @ 28" H2O.

After "SuperBowl" blending and polished chambers we have.
Intakes; .100=67.7, .200=146, .300=214, .400=279, .500=328.4, .600=356, .700=354, .750=354 cfm @ 28" H2O.
Exhaust; .100=54, .200=104, .300=143, .400=178, .500=206, .600=227, .700=235, .750=235 cfm @ 28" H2O.

Generally bowl blending with most heads is more beneficial than it was with these heads. That's just a testimony as to how nice these heads are out of the box. The greatest gains seemed to be in the mid-range on the exhaust ports.

We think these heads represent a very good value for the dollar. My biggest complaint is that the spring seat cup is a stamped "cheap" piece that doesn't really stop any valve spring wiggle because it doesn't locate on either the guide or the machined alum. on the outside. I'd reccommend changing that for race engines, but it will be okay for street/strip engines.

Hope this helps, Charlie


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
64.238.254.122 OLD STYLE ALUMINUM COBRA JET HEADS POSTED BY BRENDEN HOWE October 21 2004, 2:11 PM

Kaase flow #'s


Response to Ford racing

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

These are from my old style TFS CJ heads that Kaase did a few years ago.

In: .3 245, .4 308, .5 350, .6 375, .7 395, .8 401.

Ex: .3 172, .4 203, .5 228, .6 241, .7 244, .8 246.

They have 2.25 intake valve and 1.75 exhaust, and were flowed at 28.0 in H20.
Brenden Howe





Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
64.238.254.122 A429 COBRA JET HEADS POSTED BY DAVID S October 21 2004, 2:16 PM

Cobra Jet Alm 460 Head
2.25 Intake & 1.760 Exhaust

Lift=Valve lift while testing Previous CFM=original flow
CurrentCFM=flow after porting % Gain=flow improvement in percent
Exhaust/Intake=Relationship between intake & exhaust flow Flowed @ 28 in.
Intake Port Test Results
Lift Previous CFM Current CFM % Gain Exhaust/Intake

0.050 50.3 49.6 -1.4 69.0
0.100 88.2 82.3 -6.8 80.4
0.200 143.6 142.6 -0.7 85.5
0.300 199.1 202.0 1.5 87.1
0.400 254.0 264.4 4.1 76.2
0.500 291.2 317.1 8.9 72.6
0.600 308.2 348.4 13.0 72.6
0.650 317.1 361.8 14.1 70.7
0.700 321.6 370.7 15.3 69.0
0.750 321.6 379.7 18.3 67.4

Exhaust Port Test Results
Lift Previous CFM Current CFM % Gain Exhaust/Intake

0.050 40.6 34.2 -15.7 69.0
0.100 72.5 66.1 -8.8 80.4
0.200 115.5 122.8 5.6 85.4
0.300 158.9 176.0 10.8 87.1
0.400 166.4 201.6 21.2 76.2
0.500 188.8 230.4 22.0 72.6
0.600 193.6 252.8 30.6 72.6
0.650 195.2 256.0 31.1 70.7
0.700 195.2 256.0 31.1 69.0
0.750 195.2 256.0 31.1 67.4

Work done. Ported, flow tested, Valve Job, Set up springs. $1133.00 04/01

Home Page Head Flow Testing Dyno Projects


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
64.238.254.122 SOME INFO FROM SCOTT J ON THE NEW SCJ HEADS FROM THE TEAM 385 BUILD IN 2003 October 21 2004, 3:13 PM

Cylinderhead castings... SCJB's. Jon Kaase's "Super Cobra Jet" castings ported Stage 3 and bench tested by yours truely at RHP. 315 cc intake ports and 110 cc exhaust ports. Expected flow rates are 385 cfm @ .800" intake and 250 cfm @ .800" exhaust. The valve sizes are the as delivered 2.2" /1.76".

Here are the preliminary flow numbers for the SCJ's as cast...

.100" / .200" /.300" /.400" /.500" /.600" /.700" /.800"

59 / 104 / 146 / 175 / 195 / 206 / 213 / 217 exhaust
-------------------------------------------------------------
81 / 155 / 250 / 313 / 359 / 345 / 340 / 331 intake

Final flow numbers were...
.1" / .2" / .3" / .4" / .5" / .6" / .7" / .8"
---------------------------------------------
95 / 166 / 256 / 330 / 380 / 370 / 380 / 370 intake
---------------------------------------------
59 / 104 / 153 / 182 / 200 / 217 / 239 / 250 exhaust

A cross check with Daves bench showed 370 cfm max intake and 250 max exhaust. The exhaust figures were 275 cfm with pipe. My bench is a bit optimistic intake and conservative exhaust flow wise. The intakes peaked at 390 CFM at .560" lift. The port began to get rough at .600" lift when the short turn was more square. Laying back the short turn helped the high lift numbers by reducing break away but mid lift numbers began to fall off. The castings were ported differently one to focus on high lift numbers and the other for mid lift flow.

The SCJ head rocks as delivered and is a great street head especially on a 500 inch or bigger combo. I feel that the smaller intake port cross section of the RPM head would be better on the smaller displacement engine providing better average numbers.


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David Willingham
(Login ProF100)
209.192.1.209 TFS A460 HEADS BY BJ'S CYLINDER HEAD SERVICE October 22 2004, 10:23 AM

And flowed by Charlie Evans on 5-1-04. These heads were ported in 1995.

2.392 intake valve

1.920 exhaust valve, non-tulip, without a pipe

Flowed at 28" H2O on a 4.625" cylinder



Lift___ .100 .200 .300 .400 .500 .600 .700 .800

Intake_ 74_ 153_ 237_ 311_ 368_ 416_ 450_ 452

Exhaust 69_ 140_ 180_ 224_ 265_ 296_ 314_ 327



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Iron head porting info October 26 2004, 4:39 AM

Just good solid info and flow numbers...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1009404862

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
64.238.254.122 Flow Technologies Link November 4 2004, 7:35 AM

http://www.flowtechnologies.net/

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Ford Kaase SCJ info from Charlie Evans November 9 2004, 2:58 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1097908371

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Ported TFS Street Heads by Charlie Evans November 9 2004, 3:05 AM

Hey Guys,

Just a little more flow data for you. Ported;

Intakes; .100=69, .200=148, .300=233, .400=301, .500=335, .600=357, .700=373, .750=378 cfm.

Exhaust; .100=64, .200=116, .300=147, .400=178, .500=208, .600=228, .700=240, .750=240 cfm.

Hope this helps,
Charlie


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.68.185 BBf iron cylinder head casting numbers and data... (Link) November 19 2004, 3:57 PM



http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/casting-numbers-descriptions-1-index.html




Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/products_index.html



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.68.185 Cylinder head flow comparison charts for BBF street and "A" heads. November 19 2004, 3:59 PM

Compiled from multiple sources.

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/Flow-comparison-figures-walt-n-nutter-index-1.html




Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/products_index.html



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 C460 head info November 30 2004, 8:37 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1101593475

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Jason Pierce
(Login jpierce55)
172.153.145.247 Cast CJ Flow#'s December 1 2004, 4:17 AM

In addition to Scott's flow#'s. These are the ones I bought from Jet Boat Bob. Flowed by Charlie Evans, and I assume ported by him as well.

If you want to know what level or how much room for improvement exist you would have to ask Charlie. This is with 28 H2O, no test pipe on the exhaust, and numbers rounded off:

Lift Intake Exhaust
.100 71 59
.200 138 102
.300 206 129
.400 265 156
.500 310 175
.600 342 184
.700 364 188
.750 371 191




Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 TFS Street head info December 9 2004, 10:57 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1098834290

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 A Head flow info December 10 2004, 9:16 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1078448367

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Agentjam
(Login agentjam)
141.151.65.68 cyl heads December 21 2004, 7:28 AM

Anyone want to post up pics of what their headwork looks like? I'd really like to see how some of you guys worked those 460 heads...

Vince

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Re: cyl heads December 29 2004, 11:36 AM

General aftermarket head info...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1098834290

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Rick
(Login Racer_Rick)
68.12.232.111 Blue Thunder heads January 10 2005, 11:06 PM

These are the numbers on my BT's with a decent clean-up. All done at 28" with no exhaust tube
Intake Exhaust
.100 71 .100 56
.200 142 .200 115
.300 213 .300 158
.400 264 .400 192
.500 302 .500 225
.600 326 .600 248
.700 346 .700 264
.800 360 .800 276
Done by Todd Macinzie who worked for Ken Duttweiler. Was told there was more in them but I thought this was sufficient

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
24.75.129.137 Profiler flow numbers from Charlie Evans January 13 2005, 4:47 AM

Guys,

Through a "friend of a friend" a set of Profilers recently came across my workbench. These heads had been prepped by Bennett Racing in Alabama. As you know they are high end heads and supposedly one of the advantages of these heads is that they are "cast as ported". Bennett had done a good bowl blend and the valve job. The intakes were 2.400" with a 52* seat and corresponding backcuts & etc.. The exhaust were 1.900" with a 55* seat. The heads were flowed at 28" H2O by Bennett. These are their flow numbers. The exhaust were flowed WITHOUT a test pipe.

Intake; .200=166, .300=243, .400=304, .500=356, .600=410, .700=462, .800=486, .900=504 cfm.

Exhaust; .200=115, .300=164, .400=210, .500=244, .600=272, .700=289, .800=305, .900=319 cfm.

Some of you that I have ported either A-460 or C-460 heads for, may find these numbers interesting.

Hope this helps,
Charlie


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
24.75.129.137 Ford Kaase SCJ flow numbers from Charlie Evans January 25 2005, 4:34 AM

Here are the flow numbers that you keep loosing. I'll give Out of Box, SuperBowl Blend, & Fully Ported.

Out of Box;

Intakes; .100=73, .200=167, .300=250, .400=318, .500=340, .600=328, .700=328 cfm

Exhaust; .100=57, .200=102, .300=144, .400=175, .500=186, .600=196, .700=202 cfm

SuperBowl Blend;

Intakes; .100=73, .200=167, .300=252, .400=323, .500=371, .600=349, .700=344 cfm

Exhaust: .100=58, .200=103, .300=145, .400=177, .500=190, .600=207, .700=218 cfm

Fully Ported;

Intakes; .100=72, .200=154, .300=252, .400=336, .500=393, .550=401 .600=366, .700=362, .750=360 cfm

Exhaust; .100=61, .200=114, .300=157, .400=185, .500=204, .600=225, .700=233, .750=234 cfm

Exhausts were flowed WITHOUT a test pipe.

Hope this helps,
Charlie


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
24.75.129.137 Travis Rice's C460 head info...and 557 build notes January 27 2005, 3:15 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1106622255

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Les
(Login Wildfire466)
69.229.119.13 Adjusting the valves March 29 2005, 8:42 PM



This message has been edited by Wildfire466 from IP address 68.127.115.227 on Sep 7, 2005 6:18 PM




Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Re: CYLINDER HEADS April 29 2005, 5:31 AM

Hopefully this pic shows up well, Danny Cabral sent me this blue print for the TFS Street head which he received from TFS. Should help clear up any questions about the exhaust flange. Thanks to Danny.



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Danny Cabral
(Login dcf150)
67.163.170.250 Machined Surface Finish May 15 2005, 7:12 AM

The factory Ford engine shop manual (460 engine) specifies a head gasket surface finish of RMS 90-150 on the block and RMS 60-110 on the cylinder head. (RMS values are outdated measures.)

RA is the modern method of surface analyzation and has been designated by the International Standards Organizations (ISO) as the correct practice for measuring the roughness of a machined surface. RA is roughly 90% of RMS. Multiplying RA value times 1.11 will give you an approximate RMS value. A great link explaining all of this much better than I can:

http://www.bandgmachine.com/technical/feb95.htm

May God's Grace Bless You.

1978 Bronco, 508" EFI, A/C, Lentech Strip Terminator AOD-FRPP wide ratio gearset, Atlas II Highlander transfer case, performance built Dana 44/60-lockers & 4.10 gears, 4 wheel disc brakes, heim joint cross-over steering, 4" suspension lift, 35" mud tires.

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Hemi Head information... July 28 2005, 3:11 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1122351258

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Blue Thunder info September 8 2005, 3:03 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1072059801

Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 EX514 porting info October 12 2005, 6:39 AM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread-85220-1128743692-Pictures+Of+Charlie+Evans+work+on+my+EX-514+heads.+Many+Pics.



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Re: EX514 porting info November 3 2005, 7:11 AM

Good explanation of the "pecking order" of BBF heads from full race to stock iron stuff.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/85220/thread/1127808251/460+heads



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 Re: EX514 porting info November 8 2005, 3:44 AM

C460 flow information, and flow information of Nailhead versus Tulip valves in C460s

http://www.network54.com/Forum/85220/thread/1131300939/Flow++Test++Results;++Dan++Tyner's++Heads



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brian
(Login BrianEyler)
65.41.56.13 Re: CYLINDER HEADS December 10 2005, 7:42 AM

Ported D20E PI heads. Intake port and bowl opened up to 310cc (slightly smaller than CJ). Exhaust just cleaned up with minor grinding. Intake valve used was Ferrea F5031 (2.25). Exhaust valve used was Ford Motorsport tulip A429 (1.76). 45 degree seats with backcut on intake valve. Hardened exhaust seats are a little big ID - about 1.588" - so might have hurt flow. Intake valve is unshrouded.

Superflow 600. No pipe.
I E
.100 84 65
.200 176 100
.300 246 142
.400 298 174
.500 314 182
.600 329 194
.700 339 199
.800 348 199


Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
199.244.214.30 More C460 flow figures and porting information December 13 2005, 3:53 AM

Great info by Charlie Evans...

http://www.network54.com/Forum/85220/thread/1134444697/Ford+C-460+Head+Flow+Tech+Data



Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - CYLINDER HEADS

Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
SCJ tech from Charlie Evans

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

Head Tech # 101; Ford SCJ Kaase heads, Part 2
October 16 2004 at 2:32 AM
No score for this post Charlie Evans (Login c.evans)
from IP address 205.188.116.131

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

Back Again,

The previous flow data given in the other post was with Ford valves M-6507-B429 intakes and M-6505-A429 exhausts.

Our next test was to try different valves. We tried 4 different intake valves. The Ford valve and a Ferrea #F1228P were both 2.200". With a proper backcut of 30* and about .080" wide, we got basically identical flow numbers. These are the ones I've given in the other post for intake flow. Next we had a couple of 2.250" valves. I had a S-I #1652SG + 100 and a REV # CL1742. The REV was better than the S-I and here are the intake flow numbers with the 2.250" REV.

Intakes; .100=70, .200-154, .300=253, .400=335, .500=392 (that's right), .600=363, .700=356, .750=356 cfm @ 28" H2O. Notice that the intake flow was hurt some below .400 as compared to the smaller 2.200" valve, but that the intake flow gained some at .500 and above.

Exhausts; Five different exhaust valves were tried. They are the Ford M-6505-A429 which is very much a tulip shaped exhaust, and a REV CL 1832, a S-I 6005 SG these are both 1.77 Pontiac valves. Also a REV 1.800" #1834 and a custom Manley titianium valve that is 1.75". Thus far the Ford valve is the "winner" and the Manley custom titanium is in second place. I think it will be hard to beat the Ford exhaust valve, but still more testing will be done.

Later, Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
Russ
(Login RapidRuss)
152.163.100.130 This is why I leave it too the Pro's...And Charlie
No score for this post October 16 2004, 4:13 AM


What make em flow better @ .500" as too .600" and .700"s ??

Because my cam wont be real radical but .671/.678" on the street/strip 75%/25%....

Russ

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brian
(Login BrianEyler)
4.23.226.205 Re: Head Tech # 101; Ford SCJ Kaase heads, Part 2
No score for this post October 16 2004, 8:04 AM

I played around with valve sizes in my SCJ's since I am running the 2.25 intake and found that a 1.800 exhaust valve was a little too close for comfort...about .030 from the intake valve at the closest point during the cycle. 2.25/1.76 works about right (at least with my Reed roller).

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Valve Length, Tip Length and Installed Height; - Got Data
No score for this post October 16 2004, 7:25 PM

Guys,

Lem and I spent some time this afternoon mocking up and checking about nine different brands and lengths of valves in the SCJ heads. I'll try to give it to you.

Intake valves
1. 2.250" REV #CL1742 1.975" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers,
5.375" long w/.250" tip.
2. 2.200" Ford M-6507-B-429 1.893" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers
5.265" long w/.250" tip.
3. 2.250" S-I #1652SG 1.888" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers,
5.285" long w/.260" tip.
4. 2.200" Ferrea #F6196 1.888" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers,
5.271" long w/.250" tip.


Exhaust valves
1. 1.770" S-I #6005SG 2.081" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers,
5.210" long w/.220" tip.
2. 1.770" REV #HP4004 2.045" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers,
5.220" long w/.250" tip.
3. 1.800" REV #CL1834 1.965" inst.ght. w/std. keepers,
5.155" long w/.250" tip.
4. 1.760" Ford M-6505-A-429 1.935" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers
5.060" long w/.260" tip.
5. 1.760" Ferrea #F6258 1.876" inst.hgt. w/std. keepers,
5.055" long w/.250" tip.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 152.163.100.130 on Oct 17, 2004 9:25 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 More Data - Head Bolts
No score for this post October 17 2004, 9:33 PM

Hey Guys,

Lem also measured the height of the various castings at the outside roll of bolt holes. In other words, where the machined surface or flat is for the head bolt washers. Here's what he got.

1. Factory D3VE cast iron head = 3.800"
2. Ford SVO A-429 CJ alum. head = 3.945"
3. TFS Street/Strip CJ alum. head = 3.910"
4. Ford Kaase SCJ alum. head = 4.000"

Hope this helps,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Paul Kane
(Login PaulKane)
209.86.242.6 S-I Valves
No score for this post October 17 2004, 10:01 PM

Charlie,

Testing aside, have you and Lem run the S-I Valves? I have a line on 'em cheap but the same source steered me away, based on my intended application (which was a gas motor at the time).

Aren't S-I's from Japan and actually a parent manufacturer/supplier of other major brand valves?

Paul


It's all about thrust...


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.131.168 Re: S-I Valves
No score for this post October 17 2004, 11:29 PM

I have not used S-I valves . Manley mostly .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Randy Malik
(Login rmcomprandy)
4.229.9.233 S I valves
No score for this post October 18 2004, 8:57 AM

S.I. and REV are the same valves. Although they are different companies they share invintory and work it out somehow. I deal with them all the time and they will make valves to your specs if you provide a print. They are made in Argentina not Japan.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.131 I Agree With Randy,
No score for this post October 18 2004, 11:28 AM

Paul,

The S-I valves I ordered for testing actually came from REV. Personally I think a REV valve is finished a little nicer than an S-I valve. I haven't used S-I valves in any Fords I built, but I have used them in other brand engines.

You would be surprised how many valve companies have their valve blanks made off-shore and then they are finished here stateside.

By the way, I want to thank Randy Malik for his forthrightness and honesty when he provided me with some flow data on a set of his Ford SCJ heads. Some of the exact same numbers he was getting on his flow bench, I got on mine, such as intake flow @ .400 being 333 cfm. Thanks Randy.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
64.251.140.142 SI Valves
No score for this post October 18 2004, 12:55 PM

I've used SI valves quite a bit over the years and I think their stuff is just fine. They seem to have a catalog that's sort of confusing but if you call them they will point you in the right direction. I've used their PortFlow and Silverline valves with fine results in all sorts of racing and street applications.

I think that the REV valves are the same as SI also.


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brian
(Login BrianEyler)
146.186.4.204 Re: More Data - Head Bolts
No score for this post October 19 2004, 5:44 PM

I took about .095 off the outer row of bosses to get my ARP nuts onto all of the stud.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Larry
(Login JustStrokin)
68.159.189.35 Head studs, I used 12pt numbers on the inner 5 studs and 6 pt on outer studs...n/m
No score for this post October 19 2004, 5:55 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Paul Kane
(Login PaulKane)
209.86.253.68 Dave, Randy, Lem & Charlie:
No score for this post October 19 2004, 6:05 PM

Thanks for the info on the S-I/Rev Valves. They sound like a decent option for many applicatons.

Paul


It's all about thrust...


This message has been edited by PaulKane from IP address 209.86.253.68 on Oct 19, 2004 6:06 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
64.251.142.17 SI Valves
No score for this post October 19 2004, 6:38 PM

Their stuff is fine but you have to remember that they have several levels of quality depending upon the intended application. The Portflow valves for instance are an inexpensive swirl polished stainless valve that's intended for mild applications, something with a solid flat tappet cam etc. I've used them in circle track engines with fine results but on two barrel stuff I've used their premium valves in the exhaust side.

Their SilverLine valves are very nice quality and they are suitable for racing roller applications..When you talk to them be sure to ask a few questions, tell them about your application and they will sell you the right stuff.

Their valve seats are good too by the way...


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
64.251.142.17 Studs for SCJ heads
No score for this post October 19 2004, 6:40 PM

On the engine for the Engine Masters' last year I used an ARP stud kit for the regular production style heads but I used a 12pt nut set on them for clearance. You could just put the 12pt stuff inside the engine if you want to but I think it's easier to not have to switch sockets when torquing the heads.



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

gregaust
(Login gregaust)
203.143.247.76 Head stud length
No score for this post November 9 2004, 5:05 AM

Dave
Did you notice with the SCJ heads that the 12pt nuts don't run all the way on the stud as brian mentioned above.
Could the stud maybe not run all the way in or would it prob not hurt just to use as is with the nut just above the stud.I hope that makes sense.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
64.251.141.116 Stud length
No score for this post November 13 2004, 10:15 AM

I don't recall any problems with the stud lenght. It's possible that they just happen to screw a little deeper into your block than the one I used for that engine. Only a thread or so could make a pretty big difference.



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Anonymous
(Login 89coupe)
70.241.102.162 Re: Stud length
No score for this post November 13 2004, 12:06 PM

The studs I had were not long enough either. After getting off the phone with ARP, I had to buy studs for the Blue Thunder heads. These were the correct length.

Martin Keefer

This message has been edited by 89coupe from IP address 70.241.102.162 on Nov 13, 2004 12:18 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
69.166.131.168 Bump n/m
No score for this post November 8 2004, 8:44 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.116.130 Bronco Pat; Read This Whole Thread n/m
No score for this post November 13 2004, 12:28 AM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.74 Bump n/m
No score for this post December 7 2004, 8:18 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Bump For Steve T. - Read This Thread n/m
No score for this post March 6 2005, 10:40 AM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - Head Tech # 101; Ford SCJ Kaase heads, Part 2

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
C460 info

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

I was going over some pass posts....
November 27 2004 at 5:11 PM
No score for this post David (Login DJOHAGIN)
from IP address 68.120.153.230

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

and I came across this:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1040585384

within that post was this:

Flat-Tappet, C-Head, 4.40" Bore

To partially answer your question about lower rpm performance from a C-460 motor, here are the dyno results for our C-460 engine when it had an Ultradyne flat tappet cam, 4.4 bore, 4.2 stroke, 11:1 CR, 1X4bbl., almost no head work. These numbers came with 110 octane and 36 degrees total advance, we were able to run it on 92 with either 32 or 34 degrees (can't remember). Unfortunately, I do not have the data from 92 octane test (this was several years ago). I think all we did was check to see if it was feasible. We typically ran this motor with a 50/50 mix of 92 and 110. Cam specs (same for both intake and exhaust): 0.663" lift with 1.8 rockers, 259 duration @ 0.050, 292 duration @ 0.020, 112 lobe seperation.

RPM HP Tq.
4500 580.9 678
4600 593.4 677.5
4700 610.5 682.2
4800 627 686
4900 640.1 686.1
5000 664.6 698.1
5100 676.9 697.1
5200 688.9 695.8
5300 704.6 698.2
5400 714.5 694.9
5500 727.5 694.7
5600 739.7 693.7
5700 753.2 694
5800 754.2 682.9
5900 758.3 675
6000 762 667
6100 766.1 659.6
6200 770.4 652.6
6300 785.3 654.7
6400 796.2 653.4
6500 797.2 644.1
6600 Peak 802.5 638.6

It was my understanding that these heads shouldn't be run with a bore smaller than 4.44, and at 4.44 they are losing power. But this engine was making 800 hp, on 11 to 1, with a flat tappet cam on a 4.40 or .040 over stock. What would it have make if it had a roller cam like the XR292? I've seen dyno results with CJ style heads over 800 hp also, but thats with 272 + duration, with a roller, on the intake and with 13 and above compression ratio. I know Lem and Charlie could answer this question best, would it be possible to run a 4.39 bore C-headed street engine? I had posted a while back on a filled A-headed street engine, but it's my understanding that the C-Heads ports are smaller in cross section than the A-Heads. I've never seen them in person. This is what I'm trying to find out, if you present better flow quality to a 460, 30 over bore with stock 3.85 stroke, by using the C-head, with the Magnum 306S cam, 11 to 1 compression, redline of 7,200, would you make big power difference than using TFS street heads or the SCJs. I understand the cost is more, but to say you're running C-heads, on the street, priceless .



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Matt,
No score for this post November 27 2004, 6:19 PM

Can you give some more details on that build?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Matt Robison
(Login mattrobison)
24.221.172.184 That was the engine I ran in '99 and '00
No score for this post November 27 2004, 6:40 PM

The numbers came from the dyno. at Huffaker Engineering. I never raced it with 92 octane - just did a dyno test. It was a stock block and it had cracked cylinders by the end of each year I ran it. We also had symptoms of valve float on the cylinder walls. We probably ran it for too long on a set of valve springs. I was using the engine for road racing. It might have gone for quite a long time in a street/strip application.

I'm not sure how much more detail I can muster. I wish I could remember exactly how big the valves were. It had aluminum rods (Howards I think), I think it was an LA Crank, it had a wet sump, C-460 manifold, and 4-into-1 headers. Harold Souza built the motor.

I ran the oil cooler in front of the radiator because of concern over oil temp. with the aluminum rods. This made it tough to control coolant temp. We switched to steel rods for the current motor.

In retrospect I must say that engine was a very good value - prehaps a great value for applications requiring less endurance.







Matt

http://www.robisonracing.com

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.131.168 Small bore "C"
No score for this post November 27 2004, 6:56 PM

Part of what makes the things work ...is that the exh valve is moved toward the cyl wall to allow better position and size for the intake valves . One can make the valves smaller to fit lesser bores with a loss of flow/performance . Some of which may be a decent trade off in a smaller engine . At some point the the i.d. of the seat will get too big for the small head exh valve , requiring seat removal and welding .
I am speaking in general terms , as I have NOT ventured into that area . I haven't got that bored ,YET ! I'm sure I will before the winter is over . I'll pop a "C" on a +.030" block and see how small the valves get , sometime before spring .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Matt Robison
(Login mattrobison)
24.221.172.184 Small "C" rationale
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:10 PM

Part of the reason for using C heads in the stock block, flat tappet application was upgrade potential. Harold's view was that a relatively unimproved C head was still quite good compared to other alternatives (this was mid-to-late '90s) and that while expensive, the valve train would support endurance needs.

Having implemented some of the upgrade potential, such as port optimization, a roller cam, a bit more compression (now 12.6:1), a 4.56" bore (different block) and a 4.25" stroke, the engine now makes over 950hp through the mufflers at a still reasonable/sustainable 6,700 rpm.

I think Harold was right.









Matt

http://www.robisonracing.com

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.131.168 Re: Small "C" rationale
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:16 PM

Agreed . It's always good to have parts you can build on . What size are the valves in the 4.560" bore ?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Matt Robison
(Login mattrobison)
24.221.172.184 Re: Small "C" rationale
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:26 PM

I believe they are 2.44/1.87



Matt

http://www.robisonracing.com

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

wayne y
(Login 2big2go)
65.60.199.147 the other direction Lem....
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:26 PM

To shift to the other direction, have you tried a smaller exh. valve say 1.800 and a biger intake 2.500 or 2.550 to help the intake side out to get it to the 530 ish cfm range? I know these heads have a strong exh port with the 1.900 valve ( 380+ cfm).

wayne

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.131.168 I...
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:39 PM

like the 1.88" but Charlie kind of prefers the 1.9" . 2.450" intake vale is what we are working with now . I think the size can get too big in a hurry given the rpm range the powerglide sportsman engines live in ....not looking to go bigger at this time .


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.183.181 On a 4.440 bore the exhaust valve is very close to the cylinder wall ...........
No score for this post November 28 2004, 10:56 AM

With an 800 lift camshaft and a 1.800 ex valve the side clearance is only .028!!! I don't know if an offset dowel would help any or not as it seems that there is no limit on the intake valve size just by glancing at it. The exhaust valve placement is the limiting factor as far as I can see on the 4.440 bore.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Matt Robison
(Login mattrobison)
24.221.172.184 Low lift/flat tappet motor (n/m)
No score for this post November 28 2004, 1:48 PM






Matt

http://www.robisonracing.com

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Lem, are the port....
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:24 PM

cross-section same size/smaller/larger than stock heads?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Do the cross-section sizes.....
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:26 PM

dictate the torque peak and hp rpms.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

wayne y
(Login 2big2go)
65.60.199.147 Re: Do the cross-section sizes.....
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:30 PM

If you draw the same volume of air(cfm) through a smaller cross section port the air will be moving faster. air speed = low end torque

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.131.168 Generally...
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:43 PM

that would be the case .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.131.168 To a ...
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:42 PM

large degree...but cam and manifolding play their part also .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.199 David, Which Stock Heads?
No score for this post November 27 2004, 8:13 PM

Are you asking is the port cross section of our C-460 heads verses unported C-460 heads? Or what stock head are you speaking of? I'll try to answer but I'm confused.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Stock heads as in....
No score for this post November 27 2004, 8:17 PM

Doves and CJs.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.199 Well, To Begin With,
No score for this post November 27 2004, 8:46 PM

the intake port cross sectional area of an iron DOOE-R CJ head is a lot bigger than an iron DOVE-A or C head, but now I understand your question.

The intake port cross sectional area of a C-460 head is bigger than any cast iron head.

When Jason Pierce was down here today picking up his heads, I took time to show him some different Ford heads that were around the shop. He saw a CNC ported C-460, a BT raised exhaust port CJ head, new TFS Street heads and two sets of iron DOOE-R CJ heads. I wish that some time we could all get together and have some kind of tech seminar. Lem and I could bring lots of different kinds of heads and let everybody see them and "finger" on them. The "big picture" becomes clearer when you can compare them side by side.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 64.12.116.199 on Nov 27, 2004 8:49 PM
This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 64.12.116.199 on Nov 27, 2004 8:47 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Jason
(Login jpierce55)
172.153.180.17 C heads are bigger in person,
No score for this post November 27 2004, 9:00 PM

than they look in the pictures that is for sure. Charlie is right you can see a big difference comparing the various heads side by side.

Took me forever to get home traffic was going as slow as 15mph on the highway.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.199 Well This Is Thought Provoking...........
No score for this post November 27 2004, 7:59 PM

Hey Guys,

I'm not going to attempt to give any answers here, but maybe just some ideas and imput.

1. The C-460 heads have a pretty big port cross sectional area out of the box, but then so does the cast iron Cobra-Jet head. Where do most people measure this cross-section. Some measure it at the port entry, but that's not where the smallest constriction is. Generally speaking it is either at the push-rod pinch or farther down the port at the crest of the floor. Weld Tech measures it there.

2. What represents the better quality of flow that was mentioned above? According to the Performance Professor Jim McFarland, the better quality is something that we should all strive for and is represented by a finer atomization of the fuel droplets and a more homogenous mixture throughout the chamber. No wet spots or puddling.

3. The areas where a lot of work is being done right now in regards to airflow R&D is in regards to wet flow. Darrin Morgan has been on the cutting edge of this research.

4. According to Warren Johnson and a Speed Reading article in the National Dragster a few years ago, he said we should be seeking the greatest flow possible through the smallest port possible. As Wayne said that would be a high velocity port. So.........would a set of TFS Street heads on a 470 or so CID engine be better or worse than a set of Ford C-460 heads? The Ford heads can certainly flow more than the TFS heads, but then their intake port cross section is much bigger.

5. I'm going to have to make a list of the intake port volumes and try to accurately measure the choke point of the port on all of these heads that we use. Lem and I have our hands on just about all of them except for the Hemi heads and I generally measure the intake port volume before and after porting, so I've already got a good bit of data.

6. In regards to using the C-460 heads for the benefit of the shaft mounted rocker arms and stable valve train. Remember that shaft mounted rockers are available for CJ heads and A-460 heads also. It's just that most people don't use them due to the cost factor.

7. In regards to using a 2.500" intake valve in c-460 heads. The seats interlock anyway and the actual 45* seat surface of the intake valve is over on the exhaust seat, so,,,, we'd have to be pulling and welding seats up and cutting new ones. That's a lot of trouble just for R&D. The 1.880" exhaust valve works real well and that's what we'd prefer to use most of the time. Then when guys say the engine is going to see nitrous we step it up to a 1.900" valve and have a slightly larger nitrous exhaust port for that application.

8. I just wanted to mention that we do some wet flow testing ourselves, generally by using machinists spray dykem while the flow bench is running and getting a pattern. When you pull the head off the bench you can study that pattern of dry dykem in the chamber. It's not an exact science. Also when Jason Pierce was down here today and we were flow testing his heads while he watched, I explained to him about using the smoke test and a flashlight while the bench was running. Another factor and Lem listens for this all the time, is the screaching noise a bad intake port makes while it is being flowed. The point is, that their other ways of judging a port other than just the flow numbers.

Hope this helps,br />
Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 64.12.116.199 on Nov 27, 2004 8:09 PM
This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 64.12.116.199 on Nov 27, 2004 8:02 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Charlie, as far as port volumes go....
No score for this post November 27 2004, 8:15 PM

I have a hard time understanding how port volume tells you weather or not if it's too much for an engine.

Example: The new SCJ exhaust ports are longer than the previous CJ heads. So, if both have the exact same cross-section from the exhaust flange to valve seat, the SCJ will measure more CCs.

Other thing I'm trying to understand. If you were to make the cross-section the same in the intake port of a SCJ head and a C-Head, would both heads show the same flow, even though the C-Head has a better angle to the bowl? And again, if you did this, wouldn't the C-Head show more volume in the intake port because it is longer?

I wanted to thank everyone on this forum, there is pretty much no where else you can go, and get answers, like here.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.199 David, You're Right
No score for this post November 27 2004, 8:35 PM

The port volume data would be relative to only other heads in the same family. The length enters in to the equation. For example;

Port volume of a CJ style head would be relative to all other CJ heads, with the exception of the SCJ head, because Jon pulled the valve seat up in the cylinder. Likewise the port volume of all 3 of the A-460 heads would be relative only to each other, but not to CJ's or DOVEs because they have a raised port entry and require a different intake manifold completely.

As you said, IF the minimum cross sectional area of a SCJ head and a C-460 WERE exactly the same, the C-460 head can be expected to flow more air due to it's port being raised. Airflow does NOT like tight/small turn radiuses, therefore the higher port C-460 head will flow better.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 152.163.100.130 on Nov 28, 2004 8:10 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.68.185 I did a post on minimum intake port cross sections for the street heads...
No score for this post November 28 2004, 1:22 PM

http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=85220&messageid=1100744021

Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/products_index.html



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Thanks Scott ! I See It. Steve L. or Chilly Should Probally Put
No score for this post November 29 2004, 12:18 AM

it in the Engine Builds section for us under heads.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie S.
(Login DblAdigger)
4.3.211.20 Not to pick to many nits but,
No score for this post November 27 2004, 10:39 PM

4.440 is .080 over stock.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Terry
(Login 1070hp)
4.180.60.181 pickin' a nit
No score for this post November 29 2004, 11:38 PM

That is correct but, the 4.400 engine
in that post is only .040 over stock.
Terry

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Rehash of min. cross sections and questions....
No score for this post November 28 2004, 3:00 PM

Courtesy of ScottJ

The measurements are of the minimum height and width of the respective intake ports. This represents the choke point in the port.

CASTING-----------------------------------Width---Height

Iron CJ and P.I.-------------------------- 1.75" x 1.93"

395 cfm AR 1st gen aluminum CJ----- 1.84" x 1.74"

Stock D0VE------------------------------- 1.66" x 1.80"

365 cfm D0VE---------------------------- 1.74" x 1.85"

380 cfm D0VE---------------------------- 1.79" x 1.87"

Fuelie E7TE------------------------------- 1.75" x 1.52"

Stock D3VE------------------------------- 1.70" x 1.80"

Now a question about the above. If the choke points are close in size (AR aluminum CJ) and (365 cfm Dove) is the AR head flowing 30 cfm more because of the quality of the flow or because of the size of the port before the choke point?

Charlie, I have some questions about the flow of the C-Heads that you posted a while back.

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

45 degree seats---2.45 intake and 1.9 exhaust valve---4.625 cylinder sleeve size---no exhaust test tube

C-heads out of the box

200 - 159/111 69%
300 - 227/150 66%
400 - 285/183 64%
500 - 327/201 61%
600 - 351/214 60%
700 - 367/221 60%
750 - 380/224 58%
800 - 380/225 59%

Bowl blend

200 - 154/111 72%
300 - 230/166 72%
400 - 306/217 70%
500 - 380/260 68%
600 - 425/270 63%
700 - 427/293 68%
750 - 418/299 71%

With out of the box performance, flow at .650 would only be around 359 cfm and with a bowl clean-up, 426 cfm. That is a 67 cfm improvement. Did the cfm improvement come from enlarging the bowl's volume, or just knocking off the flash? You stated that the intake port cross sectional area of a C-460 head is bigger than any cast iron head, so low and mid-range torque would be hurt alot on a 460 cubic inch engine. Kinda like the street Boss 429? Is this correct, or does the port shape help to overcome this?


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Answers
No score for this post November 28 2004, 8:37 PM

David,

In regards to your questions.

#1 The A-429 alum, probally has a 2.250" intake valve. Whereas the DOVE head probally has a 2.200" intake valve. IF there is a difference in valve diameter, that would account for some of the 30 cfm difference but certainly not all of it. More like 10-14 cfm. Thanks Scott for posting that data.

#2 The C-460 head generally has a lot of core shift from the factory. There is always a pretty major mismatch between the casting and the seat insert. So there is more than "just a little" bowl blending to do. More than tootsie roll work. These heads are not for beginners. Once you get the head straightened out like what it is supposed to be, then the flow numbers really jump up and that's where your 67 cfm comes from.

#3 It's possible that the head may be too big for a 460 CID engine, and that the ports may be lazy unless you really twist the engine tight. I don't think it would make a responsive street head. In that respect it would be like the Boss 429 you mentioned. Still, on the otherhand, it should do better than the Boss 429 because of the better port design. The port entry is raised much higher than the Boss 429. This entry is generally measured by the height of the port's floor above the deck surface, or relative to the deck surface. Just speaking in general terms from memory because I don't have any heads in front of me now. The original Boss 429 head's port floor was ABOUT 5/8" above the deck surface and the C-460's port floor is ABOUT 2" above the deck surface. So you can see it's a raised port. As better heads are developed, you're always going to see the ports being raised higher and higher. Thus the overall height of the head becomes taller and taller.

Hope this helps,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

David
(Login DJOHAGIN)
68.120.153.230 Thanks for all the responds.
No score for this post November 29 2004, 8:51 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Todd DeVore
(Login BBF-Dragster)
209.173.170.203 ProFiler
No score for this post November 30 2004, 12:42 PM

Great discussion on these heads. Very informative. Let me throw out one more for consideration. Sometime in the mid-term time frame, I'm planning on doing a 598 for use in IHRA Top Dragster. I've been planning on doing EFI with ProFiler heads. Charlie/Lem, any experience with them? Thoughts on that combo? I don't want you guys and Phillip to have all the fun in the Jegs Super Quick series.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Craig
(Login SQ34)
24.166.5.18 Profiler
No score for this post November 30 2004, 11:48 PM

There are no intakes availible at this time for the ford head, sheetmetal only. These heads are a better bolt on application than the c head out of the box

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Todd DeVore
(Login BBF-Dragster)
209.173.170.203 ProFiler Intakes
No score for this post December 1 2004, 7:52 AM

I thought Ray Franks Enterprises (ProFiler) made matching low/medium rise and tunnel ram with changeable 1x4 and 2x4 Dominator tops for the ProFiler heads? He had them on display at PRI last year.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.116.130 The Fine Print Got 'Ya !
No score for this post December 1 2004, 5:57 PM

Todd,

You're semi-right. The cast tunnel ram with interchangeble tops is for the 4.84" Chevy bore spacing engines and then he does has something for the 4.900" bore spacing Pro-Stock stuff, but then it is for GM DRCE nad shorter deck height engines. So, , , from what I can gather the next step they offer is a pre-fabbed U-Weld kit that "maybe" you can make it work with a Ford, with a lot of work.

I have explored this deal some, but right now I feel like I've hit a dead-end. I'll be doing some more homework at the PRI show this year and I hope to be talking to one of Profiler's more knowledgeable tech guys. Last year I was talking to some dummy salesman kid that did not know what he was talking about and essentially lied to me, just trying to make a sale.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Todd DeVore
(Login BBF-Dragster)
209.173.170.203 So, in other words...
No score for this post December 1 2004, 6:20 PM

Its a sheet metal manifold for ProFiler. Thanks for clearing that up. Anxious to meet you at PRI next week.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - I was going over some pass posts....

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
TFS Street Head Info

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

BEST HEADS
October 26 2004 at 7:44 PM
No score for this post S Hembree (Login 88GTPROJECT)
from IP address 68.255.52.161

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

WONDERING WHAT EDELBROCK HEADS WORK OUT BETTER ON LARGER STROKERS. ANY ADVANTAGE TO VIC JR VS PERFORMER RPM CJ'S?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
Steven L
(Login Steven_L)
208.180.19.242 Re: BEST HEADS
No score for this post October 26 2004, 9:03 PM

as far as i know the only diff between the two is that the victor has better springs and valves for a roller cam. there is a diff between the cj and non cj edelbrock heads. obviously the cj heads have cj style ports. for a stroker you might wanna check out the kaase scj aluminum heads. apparently they are a excellent head for the street, esspecially a stroker and they cost about the same as the victors. if cost is a factor check out the new tfs cj heads, also a good head very comparable to the e-bocks but for a couple hundred less.
steven

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
172.164.97.42 edelbrock
No score for this post October 26 2004, 9:13 PM

thanks for the info. anyone else familiar with the trick flow cj heads performance?


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Yes, We Think They (TFS) Are The Best Hp Value per $$
No score for this post October 26 2004, 10:13 PM

Fortunately Lem and I have been able to use or port and flow just about every big block Ford head there is. We recently had a 512 CID engine on the dyno with ported TFS Street heads that made 800 Hp. It was a race engine with a single Dominator on a Ford Victor manifold and it certainly made respectable torque and power numbers.

Even in unported form these TFS Street assembled heads are very nice and probally represent the "Best Buy" per dollar.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 152.163.100.130 on Oct 26, 2004 10:14 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
172.164.97.42 tfs heads
No score for this post October 26 2004, 10:20 PM

thanks for the response. do these tfs heads have decent street manners also? i'm looking for a head to use on a 557 around 11:1. hoping to make 700-750hp on pump gas and drive it on the street on a regular basis. i really appreciate the help, i'm new to the 385 family and wanna get this engine combo right. thanks again

-Seth

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 They Have Excellent Street Manners
No score for this post October 26 2004, 10:29 PM

Seth,

The TFS heads certainly have excellent street manners. You will like them on your 557 CID engine. You'll be pushing things a little in order to make 700 - 750 Hp on pump gas. You may want to go ahead and have them MILDLY ported to help things out a bit.

IMO I honestly don't think you'll need 700-750 Hp on the street, but then I don't know your combo. I do know we've built true dynoed 625 Hp street engines on pump gas and they were more than a handfull for the driver/owner.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
172.164.97.42 tfs heads
No score for this post October 26 2004, 11:14 PM

thanks again for your info. although its not necessary, i really would like 700hp for my street car. the engine is going in a fox body stang and the more insane the better. i will look into a set of ported tfs heads and do some more comparing. thanks again, the members of this forum are helping me get the truth and real facts on 385 parts, instead of just what an ad or salesman wants us to know

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

jeff
(Login maxton460)
4.239.114.159 any reason to want the Edelbrocks?
No score for this post October 26 2004, 11:38 PM

I think they are clearly out flowed by the Ford SCJ heads. I didn't know if you simply wanted the Edelbrocks for brand loyalty reasons or other, but Jeg's lists the Victor Jr's bare for $1940. and for roller cams at $2640. a pair!!! I got my assembled SCJ's (-B for roller cam springs) from the Ford dealer for $1740. cash. Summit wants $1795. + $9 handling for a total of $1804. a pair for assembled TFS Street heads that are set up with dual springs, although I don't know if they are roller compatable. I am not sure anyone has flowed the TFS heads against the SCJ's on the same bench under the same conditions, but I would say the Jon Kaase website description of valve locations and port shapes and his success (and others) with the SCJ head would favor the SCJ over the TFS street, especially since it is $60+ cheaper, making it the best aluminum mid-horsepower head for the buck or not. I would have to wonder also if your application would permit the TFS slightly raised exhaust runners also, just a thought.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Michael M
(Login rmcomprandy)
4.229.90.213 Edelbrock heads...?
No score for this post October 27 2004, 9:08 AM

Except for brand loyalty, the only reason I can envision to get an Edelbrock head is that they offer a head with a large 95cc chamber for those who need or want it.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Jason
(Login jpierce55)
172.175.13.147 Reasons...
No score for this post October 27 2004, 5:48 PM

A couple of reasons exist for using the Edelbrocks over Kaase SCJ:
1. No need for piston mods
2. No need to change the guideplates

Those two reasons make the heads a couple hundred cheaper than the SCJ's.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Michael M
(Login rmcomprandy)
4.229.9.226 Big chamber availability is the ONLY reason...!?
No score for this post October 27 2004, 11:53 PM

And I think the Edelbrocks COST at least a couple hundred more bucks to start with then the SCJ's so, the Edelbrock's are still behind in the dollar war. And, unless your cam is over about 254*@.050" you won't encounter any piston notch interference problems with a regular CJ "dished" piston which you'll need to use for a small, (72cc nominal), chamber street head. The notches of a stock or stock replacement piston won't radially clear ANY of the 2.19" or larger intake valves, (including those in the Edelbrock). Also, the TFS's provides all those things you claim an Edelbrock head does and cost over $60.oo dollars less a set. AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE THAT I DON'T SEE??

This message has been edited by rmcomprandy from IP address 4.229.9.226 on Oct 28, 2004 12:10 AM
This message has been edited by rmcomprandy from IP address 4.229.9.226 on Oct 28, 2004 12:01 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
65.54.98.11 Seth if you are going to use the victor heads i know of a good deal for you!
No score for this post October 27 2004, 1:13 AM

A friend of mine has a set of brand new CNC Victor heads he bought bare then put the best parts he could get into them.
They have Crower premium springs & Titanium retainers.
Inconel pro series high dollar valves.
Crower Endura Roller Rockers.
Jomar Pro series stud girdle.
A Victor intake for Dominator carb.
*ALL PARTS ARE NEW & HEADS ARE ASSEMBLED WITH PROFESSIONAL VALVE JOB
He will take $3000 for everything.
The Bare heads cost him close to $2000
He is selling this stuff because he switched directions and went to a supercharged small block.


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
68.255.52.161 CHOICES
No score for this post October 27 2004, 9:15 AM

OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS. its hard to make a decision because all of these heads seem really good. many people seem to think that the scj's are the way to go, and i'm starting to think so as well. i think i'll just look for a few more similar builds to what i'm attempting to put together and go from there. i may be wrong but 700-750hp on the street should be somewhat easy to obtain with the right parts. McLain's 557 street build seems very similar to what i'm looking for. Thanks for the info guys, sorry if i'm asking stupid questions but i'm new to the 385 stuff and wanna do it right.

thanks seth

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

KJ
(Login 6cyl3spd)
24.199.210.197 Any reason to not run the A460s
No score for this post October 27 2004, 2:04 PM

For the number of cubes and the kind of power you are looking, it seems to me that if your gonna spend $2000 may as well get them. Fitment is not a problem in the fox body and their are multiple sources for headers.. Unless you have headers already. A460s would allow you to run less cam if I am not mistaken.

Just wanted to open up a can of worms since we are all fishing here. ;--)

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

D&D AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES
(Login 460FOXTECH)
204.186.40.62 460 Heads-performance?
No score for this post October 27 2004, 2:19 PM

What are your performance goals for the vehicle! i.e. et & mph

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
68.255.52.161 GOALS
No score for this post October 27 2004, 2:41 PM

The 557 is going in an 88 stang. Car should weigh under 3000 pounds, and is built rather well. I would like to run high nines/low tens all motor in street trim if possible. The scj's sound like the way to go, but everyone has opinions of what would work the best. I'm undecided on many things, such as cam, etc but would like to figure out the exact combo before I begin buying parts. I'm running 3.73 gears and a c4 trans with a 26" tire. The 557 that Dave McClain built with the edelbrock heads is the closest build that I have seen relating to what I am looking for. Thanks again for the help

-Seth

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

D&D AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES
(Login 460FOXTECH)
204.186.40.62 EDELBROCK PERFORMANCES of -D&D customers
No score for this post October 27 2004, 4:07 PM

We worked with Edelbrock on the development of their 460 heads.
We got the first set of them for testing and gave them to a customer that
we partially sponsored at that time for testing! The car was all built using
D&D combinations. It was a 460 (not a stroker) + .080",11 1/2 -1 compression,D&D mech. flat tappet cam. Car weighed 3000lbs & ran a C4. The heads were given to us bare,we assembled (with the same components Edelbrock uses!) and did some "minor" clean up work on them. The car ran 9.68 @ 138 mph . If you (or anyone else) would like a photo postcard of the car,timeslips,info sheet etc, please E mail us your address. This is not a fluke. We currently are working with a local customer who was running one of our 514 with out of the box Edelbrock heads and a HYDRAULIC FLAT TAPPET cam in a 1984 T/bird that was a stock suspension car etc at almost 3400lbs with him in it and it was running 10.22 @ 130 mph. He wants to run NHRA Super Gas & Just last weekend he purchased a Tube chassis T/bird that only weighs 2500lbs with driver. With the weight difference he would easliy be able to run 9.50-9.90's with a hyd cam in Super Gas. We have built many dozens of these 460 series combinations using the Edelbrock heads and alway get the same results. It is not always which head flows the most as max lift,but the combination/matching of all the components. They are great in the 700-800 hp range with little effort. These heads are as close to a direct bolt on replacement head as any I have seen! If looking for much more than that normally aspirated,it may be time to look at another head option!
We also have a customer running the Edelbrocks on a (new combination) twin turbo 63 Falcon that is already running 8.70 @ 157 with very low boost
(10-12lbs) in street legal trim @ 3450 lbs. He is shooting for 7.90's street legal and I believe he will make it!
Believe it or not,this is with a flat tappet cam.(D&D design)
If you want to see this car check out the following URL http://www.forcedpsi.com/Dans.html

The helicoils in the header & rocker stud holes on the Edelbrocks is also a great asset. Too many times I get calls from customers who bought headers from us and strip the header holes out the first time they attempt to install them. We have also had issues with rocker arm studs pulling out of the alum. heads that do not have helicoils or timeserts when using large roller cams/springs!

hope this helps!

D&D AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


jayber
(Login Jayber_)
66.56.214.152 On edge of running 8s with 503 cubes
No score for this post October 27 2004, 8:58 PM

89 Mustang Coupe with Ported RPMs. Ran [email protected] in 1/8 which equates close to an 8sec run.
Hopefully looking for 5.3s soon with a 200shot and some more suspension tuning.

The Edels will go with the correct port work. I can get you in touch with the God of Porting these things if your interested in seeing just shy of 400cfms but more important than numbers.... PERFORMANCE!!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - BEST HEADS

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
A460 Head info

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

"A" Style head flow numbers
March 4 2004 at 7:59 PM
No score for this post DaveMcLain (no login)
from IP address 216.229.73.124

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

Over the last several months I've had the opportunity to flow test a few of the various "A" style heads that are now on the market. As most people know, the A-460 head was out of production for a while and during that time several other manufacturers got on the band wagon with their own version of this basic design, but with their own "improvments" along the way.

The heads tested on my flow bench were the new TFS A-460, straight out of the box, no porting or work what so ever. TFS is making a very nice cylinder head for sure and the machine work looks excellent.

The EX-514 cylinder head by Extreme Machine/Flow Technologies was tested, again out of the box with no work at all. This head made 902 horsepower on a 557 on my dyno. Bert at Flow Tech. refined the original "A" head design with smaller better flowing ports and a much improved chamber design.

I tested the EX-514 with their CNC porting package applied to the ports. They are only slightly larger after this process and it does help the numbers, particularly at high lift and on the exhaust side of the head.

Last week I got to test the head made by IDT. This head has an enormous intake port volume and this particular sample had been ported to some degree by the owner. He had been running them quite sucessfully on a mud racing 535 cubic incher turning a bunch of rpm. The IDT has a chamber similar to the EX-514 but has an even larger intake valve at 2.400! These heads had been run with a Victor intake attached with adapter plates which worked WAY better than they looked for some reason even with an unported intake manifold it wasn't too bad believe it or not. And if IDT can ever get an intake that's actually made for their head that fits this huge port, they might work quite good on a very large engine.

A-460 style heads intake and exhaust flow.


A460
.050 36 26
.100 72 61
.200 154 126
.300 225 175
.400 279 211
.500 322 243
.600 358 269
.700 372 281
.800 383 292
.900 393 Not tested at .900 on exhaust side.

EX-514

.050 36 27
.100 73 66
.200 145 128
.300 217 176
.400 283 210
.500 334 239
.600 377 261
.700 404 278
.800 420 293
.900 419 301

EX-514 CNC

.050 38 27
.100 74 64
.200 146 128
.300 219 170
.400 287 212
.500 347 247
.600 388 282
.700 412 302
.800 434 317
.900 436 330

IDT Eliminator

.050 30 27
.100 65 63
.200 134 135
.300 203 188
.400 271 233
.500 333 265
.600 380 286
.700 393 297
.800 415 305
.900 431 313


Enjoy the numbers, remember too that ALL of these numbers were generated using the same flow bench and equipment. SO, they should provide a valid look at these cylinder heads. All of them are VERY good when compared to heads for other engines.



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
brad
(no login)
64.85.213.24 A STYLE HEADS
No score for this post March 4 2004, 8:42 PM

hey dave can you post the numbers with a pipe on the exhaust i lost my flow sheet i think my kids got a hold of it ty

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 Re: "worked way better than they looked"
No score for this post March 4 2004, 8:56 PM

I'd bet if the 535" engine had a big *** manifold on it , it may not look as good .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(no login)
216.229.73.54 The adapters
No score for this post March 4 2004, 9:47 PM

The adapter was just a piece of aluminum about 1 inch thick with a passage that connected the square opening to the round hole in the Victor intake. What suprised me was that the Victor intake didn't hurt the flow very much on the bench much to my suprise because the adapter was so crudely made.

I was thinking about this, the port was so enormous I guess what might have been happening was that the intake was flowing almost like it was dumping out into the atmosphere instead of a cylinder head. It could pull on the whole manifold port with no velocity gradient at the opening???



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 Whats
No score for this post March 4 2004, 10:28 PM

a gradient ? The victor manifold is not perfect but much better than the credit it is given . The Ford "A" heads, I have used , have not ran good with a manifold with a lot of taper and/or short lenght . I used one of Price Motorsports adapter plates to do the "A"/CJ thing . Charlie did a nice job of matching the plate to the heads and manifold . It's a blown deal and has not run yet .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Dave McLain
(no login)
216.229.73.177 Info...
No score for this post March 4 2004, 10:46 PM

The velocity gradient is just how the velocity varies across the port opening at a given lift, more flow at the top, dead at the bottom etc. For instance, a DOVE-C or CJ exhaust port has a terrible velocity gradient across the port exit. It's really moving fast right at the top and it's going the wrong direction down at the bottom!!

Same with intakes, sometimes they are really moving along the floor and dead along the top, just the opposite of a typical port opening. Also, the port can have a variation from side to side too.

I don't totally understand how these factors interact when you put the intake onto the cylinder head, but somebody around here does....

So, you are using the Blue Thunder blower intake adapted to the "A" style head. I think that'll work just fine, it's going to make so much horsepower with the blower it won't make any difference!!


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 Sounds like
No score for this post March 4 2004, 10:51 PM

the velocity probe Charlie bought ! He'll be tickled to death to find out he may own a Gradient thing !

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


John
(Login jbozzelle)
66.157.18.18 Dave, can you post those 557 specs again?
No score for this post March 4 2004, 10:31 PM

I know I've seen it before when you posted. Could you be so kind to post the specs of the 557 you made 902HP with using the EX514 heads in the out-of-the-box format? I'm really curious as to intake, comp. ratio, cam, exhaust, etc......

Thanks,
John

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMclain
(no login)
216.229.73.177 557 Specs
No score for this post March 4 2004, 10:41 PM

The 557 was very basic, built using a flat top JE piston that was fly cut for the "A" style valve relief that the EX needs. The intake was the EX514 piece that was matched to their template only. The carb was a Pro Systems 1200 Dominator, it had a Cam Motion roller camshaft R2785-2962-10 was the grind number. I used Yella Terra rockers, Comp cams roller lifters and push rods. The springs, retainers, locks and valves were all from Flow Technologies and they came with the heads as their standard package.

All in all, a very straightfoward engine that ran great.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

John
(no login)
66.157.18.18 Re: 557 Specs
No score for this post March 4 2004, 11:15 PM

Dave,
Thanks alot for the info. Does the EX head use the same identical piston as the A head would? What was the comp ratio on this combo?

Thanks again,
John

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(no login)
216.229.73.159 Piston
No score for this post March 5 2004, 8:45 AM

As far as I know, yes as long as you're using a flat top piece. The chambers are shaped differently on the EX heads and they will make way over 13:1 on a flat top 557.


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


John
(Login jbozzelle)
216.85.139.18 Thanks Dave, N/M
No score for this post March 5 2004, 2:21 PM

nm

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(no login)
216.229.73.65 No problem
No score for this post March 11 2004, 1:53 PM

I would say that building an A460,Ex514, or IDT headed engine should be pretty straightforward if you choose the right piston.

Using a flat top they should all be pretty darn similar, with a dome they would be unique.



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - "A" Style head flow numbers

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
General aftermarket head info...

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

BEST HEADS
October 26 2004 at 7:44 PM
No score for this post S Hembree (Login 88GTPROJECT)
from IP address 68.255.52.161

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

WONDERING WHAT EDELBROCK HEADS WORK OUT BETTER ON LARGER STROKERS. ANY ADVANTAGE TO VIC JR VS PERFORMER RPM CJ'S?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
Steven L
(Login Steven_L)
208.180.19.242 Re: BEST HEADS
No score for this post October 26 2004, 9:03 PM

as far as i know the only diff between the two is that the victor has better springs and valves for a roller cam. there is a diff between the cj and non cj edelbrock heads. obviously the cj heads have cj style ports. for a stroker you might wanna check out the kaase scj aluminum heads. apparently they are a excellent head for the street, esspecially a stroker and they cost about the same as the victors. if cost is a factor check out the new tfs cj heads, also a good head very comparable to the e-bocks but for a couple hundred less.
steven

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
172.164.97.42 edelbrock
No score for this post October 26 2004, 9:13 PM

thanks for the info. anyone else familiar with the trick flow cj heads performance?


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Yes, We Think They (TFS) Are The Best Hp Value per $$
No score for this post October 26 2004, 10:13 PM

Fortunately Lem and I have been able to use or port and flow just about every big block Ford head there is. We recently had a 512 CID engine on the dyno with ported TFS Street heads that made 800 Hp. It was a race engine with a single Dominator on a Ford Victor manifold and it certainly made respectable torque and power numbers.

Even in unported form these TFS Street assembled heads are very nice and probally represent the "Best Buy" per dollar.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 152.163.100.130 on Oct 26, 2004 10:14 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
172.164.97.42 tfs heads
No score for this post October 26 2004, 10:20 PM

thanks for the response. do these tfs heads have decent street manners also? i'm looking for a head to use on a 557 around 11:1. hoping to make 700-750hp on pump gas and drive it on the street on a regular basis. i really appreciate the help, i'm new to the 385 family and wanna get this engine combo right. thanks again

-Seth

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 They Have Excellent Street Manners
No score for this post October 26 2004, 10:29 PM

Seth,

The TFS heads certainly have excellent street manners. You will like them on your 557 CID engine. You'll be pushing things a little in order to make 700 - 750 Hp on pump gas. You may want to go ahead and have them MILDLY ported to help things out a bit.

IMO I honestly don't think you'll need 700-750 Hp on the street, but then I don't know your combo. I do know we've built true dynoed 625 Hp street engines on pump gas and they were more than a handfull for the driver/owner.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
172.164.97.42 tfs heads
No score for this post October 26 2004, 11:14 PM

thanks again for your info. although its not necessary, i really would like 700hp for my street car. the engine is going in a fox body stang and the more insane the better. i will look into a set of ported tfs heads and do some more comparing. thanks again, the members of this forum are helping me get the truth and real facts on 385 parts, instead of just what an ad or salesman wants us to know

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

jeff
(Login maxton460)
4.239.114.159 any reason to want the Edelbrocks?
No score for this post October 26 2004, 11:38 PM

I think they are clearly out flowed by the Ford SCJ heads. I didn't know if you simply wanted the Edelbrocks for brand loyalty reasons or other, but Jeg's lists the Victor Jr's bare for $1940. and for roller cams at $2640. a pair!!! I got my assembled SCJ's (-B for roller cam springs) from the Ford dealer for $1740. cash. Summit wants $1795. + $9 handling for a total of $1804. a pair for assembled TFS Street heads that are set up with dual springs, although I don't know if they are roller compatable. I am not sure anyone has flowed the TFS heads against the SCJ's on the same bench under the same conditions, but I would say the Jon Kaase website description of valve locations and port shapes and his success (and others) with the SCJ head would favor the SCJ over the TFS street, especially since it is $60+ cheaper, making it the best aluminum mid-horsepower head for the buck or not. I would have to wonder also if your application would permit the TFS slightly raised exhaust runners also, just a thought.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Michael M
(Login rmcomprandy)
4.229.90.213 Edelbrock heads...?
No score for this post October 27 2004, 9:08 AM

Except for brand loyalty, the only reason I can envision to get an Edelbrock head is that they offer a head with a large 95cc chamber for those who need or want it.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Jason
(Login jpierce55)
172.175.13.147 Reasons...
No score for this post October 27 2004, 5:48 PM

A couple of reasons exist for using the Edelbrocks over Kaase SCJ:
1. No need for piston mods
2. No need to change the guideplates

Those two reasons make the heads a couple hundred cheaper than the SCJ's.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Michael M
(Login rmcomprandy)
4.229.9.226 Big chamber availability is the ONLY reason...!?
No score for this post October 27 2004, 11:53 PM

And I think the Edelbrocks COST at least a couple hundred more bucks to start with then the SCJ's so, the Edelbrock's are still behind in the dollar war. And, unless your cam is over about 254*@.050" you won't encounter any piston notch interference problems with a regular CJ "dished" piston which you'll need to use for a small, (72cc nominal), chamber street head. The notches of a stock or stock replacement piston won't radially clear ANY of the 2.19" or larger intake valves, (including those in the Edelbrock). Also, the TFS's provides all those things you claim an Edelbrock head does and cost over $60.oo dollars less a set. AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE THAT I DON'T SEE??

This message has been edited by rmcomprandy from IP address 4.229.9.226 on Oct 28, 2004 12:10 AM
This message has been edited by rmcomprandy from IP address 4.229.9.226 on Oct 28, 2004 12:01 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S. Leonard
(Login 1961GALAXIE)
65.54.98.11 Seth if you are going to use the victor heads i know of a good deal for you!
No score for this post October 27 2004, 1:13 AM

A friend of mine has a set of brand new CNC Victor heads he bought bare then put the best parts he could get into them.
They have Crower premium springs & Titanium retainers.
Inconel pro series high dollar valves.
Crower Endura Roller Rockers.
Jomar Pro series stud girdle.
A Victor intake for Dominator carb.
*ALL PARTS ARE NEW & HEADS ARE ASSEMBLED WITH PROFESSIONAL VALVE JOB
He will take $3000 for everything.
The Bare heads cost him close to $2000
He is selling this stuff because he switched directions and went to a supercharged small block.


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
68.255.52.161 CHOICES
No score for this post October 27 2004, 9:15 AM

OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS. its hard to make a decision because all of these heads seem really good. many people seem to think that the scj's are the way to go, and i'm starting to think so as well. i think i'll just look for a few more similar builds to what i'm attempting to put together and go from there. i may be wrong but 700-750hp on the street should be somewhat easy to obtain with the right parts. McLain's 557 street build seems very similar to what i'm looking for. Thanks for the info guys, sorry if i'm asking stupid questions but i'm new to the 385 stuff and wanna do it right.

thanks seth

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

KJ
(Login 6cyl3spd)
24.199.210.197 Any reason to not run the A460s
No score for this post October 27 2004, 2:04 PM

For the number of cubes and the kind of power you are looking, it seems to me that if your gonna spend $2000 may as well get them. Fitment is not a problem in the fox body and their are multiple sources for headers.. Unless you have headers already. A460s would allow you to run less cam if I am not mistaken.

Just wanted to open up a can of worms since we are all fishing here. ;--)

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

D&D AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES
(Login 460FOXTECH)
204.186.40.62 460 Heads-performance?
No score for this post October 27 2004, 2:19 PM

What are your performance goals for the vehicle! i.e. et & mph

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

S Hembree
(Login 88GTPROJECT)
68.255.52.161 GOALS
No score for this post October 27 2004, 2:41 PM

The 557 is going in an 88 stang. Car should weigh under 3000 pounds, and is built rather well. I would like to run high nines/low tens all motor in street trim if possible. The scj's sound like the way to go, but everyone has opinions of what would work the best. I'm undecided on many things, such as cam, etc but would like to figure out the exact combo before I begin buying parts. I'm running 3.73 gears and a c4 trans with a 26" tire. The 557 that Dave McClain built with the edelbrock heads is the closest build that I have seen relating to what I am looking for. Thanks again for the help

-Seth

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

D&D AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES
(Login 460FOXTECH)
204.186.40.62 EDELBROCK PERFORMANCES of -D&D customers
No score for this post October 27 2004, 4:07 PM

We worked with Edelbrock on the development of their 460 heads.
We got the first set of them for testing and gave them to a customer that
we partially sponsored at that time for testing! The car was all built using
D&D combinations. It was a 460 (not a stroker) + .080",11 1/2 -1 compression,D&D mech. flat tappet cam. Car weighed 3000lbs & ran a C4. The heads were given to us bare,we assembled (with the same components Edelbrock uses!) and did some "minor" clean up work on them. The car ran 9.68 @ 138 mph . If you (or anyone else) would like a photo postcard of the car,timeslips,info sheet etc, please E mail us your address. This is not a fluke. We currently are working with a local customer who was running one of our 514 with out of the box Edelbrock heads and a HYDRAULIC FLAT TAPPET cam in a 1984 T/bird that was a stock suspension car etc at almost 3400lbs with him in it and it was running 10.22 @ 130 mph. He wants to run NHRA Super Gas & Just last weekend he purchased a Tube chassis T/bird that only weighs 2500lbs with driver. With the weight difference he would easliy be able to run 9.50-9.90's with a hyd cam in Super Gas. We have built many dozens of these 460 series combinations using the Edelbrock heads and alway get the same results. It is not always which head flows the most as max lift,but the combination/matching of all the components. They are great in the 700-800 hp range with little effort. These heads are as close to a direct bolt on replacement head as any I have seen! If looking for much more than that normally aspirated,it may be time to look at another head option!
We also have a customer running the Edelbrocks on a (new combination) twin turbo 63 Falcon that is already running 8.70 @ 157 with very low boost
(10-12lbs) in street legal trim @ 3450 lbs. He is shooting for 7.90's street legal and I believe he will make it!
Believe it or not,this is with a flat tappet cam.(D&D design)
If you want to see this car check out the following URL http://www.forcedpsi.com/Dans.html

The helicoils in the header & rocker stud holes on the Edelbrocks is also a great asset. Too many times I get calls from customers who bought headers from us and strip the header holes out the first time they attempt to install them. We have also had issues with rocker arm studs pulling out of the alum. heads that do not have helicoils or timeserts when using large roller cams/springs!

hope this helps!

D&D AUTOMOTIVE SPECIALTIES




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


jayber
(Login Jayber_)
66.56.214.152 On edge of running 8s with 503 cubes
No score for this post October 27 2004, 8:58 PM

89 Mustang Coupe with Ported RPMs. Ran [email protected] in 1/8 which equates close to an 8sec run.
Hopefully looking for 5.3s soon with a 200shot and some more suspension tuning.

The Edels will go with the correct port work. I can get you in touch with the God of Porting these things if your interested in seeing just shy of 400cfms but more important than numbers.... PERFORMANCE!!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - BEST HEADS

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
More C460 notes from Travis Rice

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

c-heads
January 24 2005 at 10:04 PM
No score for this post ern (Login stealinthunder)
from IP address 65.130.39.248

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

Would like to know more info about c-heads on a 4.39 bore,what size valves can be used? Would notching bore for valve clearance be advisable? I have a 484 cid with 30 over and a 4 inch crank.Cam lift is 730. Have DOVE heads, now looking best heads for application. We are truck pulling starting at 5000rpm and better at the line and going upward.Trying to be competitive and run as cheap as possible.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply

Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.68.185 I think "A" series heads might be better for your application... Charlie???
No score for this post January 24 2005, 10:22 PM

The C's have too much intake port cross section.

Charlie and others can offer more information.

Guys???




Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/products_index.html



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.74 The Suggested Minimum Bore Size Is 4.550"
No score for this post January 25 2005, 12:26 AM

with either the Ford C-460 heads or the Profiler C-460 Replacement heads. So you can't run them IMO.

I'd go with the A-460 heads from either IDT Eliminator or TFS (Trick Flow). You may still want to do just a little bore relief with them on your 4.390" bore.

As tight as the truck pullers are buzzing these engines, the port's cross sectional area is probally not too big. Some of these guys are in Pro Stock territory in terms of rpm.

Hope this helps,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.68.185 Thanxxx Charlie, I wasn't for sure and wanted a more informed opinion.
No score for this post January 25 2005, 1:14 AM

I wasn't sure if the "C" heads had too much intake port or not.





Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/products_index.html



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.192.110 My C's are on a 4.440 bore..............
No score for this post January 25 2005, 4:10 PM

And there is minimal clearance on the exhaust valve right now with a 1.800 diameter, around .028 - .030 to the side of the bore @ full valve lift. I don't think they would work on anything that was smaller. The intake looked to be unlimited to a size you could run

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Russ
(Login RapidRuss)
205.188.116.130 Running a "C" Head on a 4.440" Bore...
No score for this post January 25 2005, 4:56 PM



Doesnt that effect the exhaust flow in a negetive way being that close too the Cylinder wall?? Seems to me you wouldnt get optimum flow out of it??

Russ

"Real Men Dont Own Bowtie's"

http://www.geocities.com/wildfire1mustang/rapidruss

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.192.107 I guess it could ..........
No score for this post January 25 2005, 5:45 PM

9.63 @ 141 weighing 3895lbs on the motor. 557 cubic inch and have not worked the bugs out of it yet.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Russ
(Login RapidRuss)
152.163.100.74 Well Travis...Sounds like it runs like a Rocket!! N/M
No score for this post January 25 2005, 9:48 PM

-RR-

"Real Men Dont Own Bowtie's"

http://www.geocities.com/wildfire1mustang/rapidruss

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brian
(Login BrianEyler)
146.186.4.219 A Rocket Full of Lead.....:)
No score for this post January 26 2005, 7:57 PM

I think Kaase or somebody actually said you want the exhaust valve as close as possible to the cylinder wall. Especially if it means you can move the intake valve further away from the wall (ala SCJ heads).

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.116.130 The Usual Ex. Valve Dia. Is 1.900"
No score for this post January 25 2005, 6:20 PM

when the heads were designed. Ford FRPP & Ferrea has them on the shelf as a catalog item in that size. I generally use a 1.900 or a 1.880 in those heads when I do them. What Travis has done is run a smaller than normal exhaust valve in the head because he's using a 4.440" bore. No problem. What we have all(head porters) learned in the past few years, is that we can sacrifice exhaust flow in order to get better intake flow and these engines will still run damn good.

Travis, do you have any exhaust flow numbers that you would be willing to share?

Russ, technically you would be correct, the exhaust flow would suffer some. The real question though, is how much exhaust flow is "good enough" in order to get the job done? Travis has answered by giving his e.t. and mph and they are good, so obviously he believes the 1.800" valve is getting the job done.

This is sorta' like the Ford Kaase SCJ heads in that the E/I ratio is not a theroretical ideal 70%, but more like 60% but the engines still run better than expected. So much for theory.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

brian
(Login birdracer)
216.109.204.79 charlie..1.75 exh valve c-head flow
No score for this post January 25 2005, 9:23 PM

sorry,can't find my flow sheet right now,but they were 274 @.700 lift with a 1.75 stainless and 45 deg seats..I know that doesnt sound too impressive,but this 514 went 8.30 in a door car @ 2650 lbs..seems to be running pretty well..(it also is a 4.440 bore)..the intakes are 2.4" and flow a little shy of charlies numbers..

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Russ
(Login RapidRuss)
152.163.100.74 Well Guys , I have read somewhere that once you get..
No score for this post January 25 2005, 9:55 PM



Over 200+ CFM exhaust flow it does matter but its not really that serious of a deal??

I cant remember where I read it? Or if one of the guys told me that.. (old age) Huh Charlie!! LOL!!

Russ

"Real Men Dont Own Bowtie's"

http://www.geocities.com/wildfire1mustang/rapidruss

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.74 Russ
No score for this post January 25 2005, 9:57 PM

I posted that tunnel ram info you wanted.
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Russ
(Login RapidRuss)
64.12.116.130 Ya Charlie I saw that....Thanks..I 'am just wondering if..
No score for this post January 26 2005, 12:51 AM


You did some more work on that Intake after Paul left??? LOL!!

Thanks Charlie !

Russ

"Real Men Dont Own Bowtie's"

http://www.geocities.com/wildfire1mustang/rapidruss

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.184.219 Charlie, info as asked.
No score for this post January 26 2005, 7:10 PM

First let me explain my reasoning for using the C heads on the 557. They have pretty decent numbers right out of the box, they take a little work but what doesn't? I was looking more at a head that would work decent but still let me use it on a bigger cubic inch motor at a later date, kind of an investment so to speak. Small chambers and shaft rockers in which also was factored in for future use. It was a little pricy but now I have them.


The heads are bowl blended, short turn worked a little on the intake side, and I matched the entry to the gasket for about 1 1/2" in, catridged rolled the entire port and removed very little casting flash to make them appear symetrical to the eye. Exhaust side has a bowl blend and catridge roll finish all the way out.


Heads were put on a flow bench at Kuntz & Co. This is where the valves were installed and the valve job was performed. They did no port work at all with the exception of cc-ing the chamber and blending the seat to the chamber.

Flow numbers as follows;

Intake: 2.400 dia @ 28" water

.300 - 245.85
.400 - 323.18
.500 - 383.52
.600 - 422.86
.650 - 440.00
.700 - 451.35
.800 - 468.78

Exhaust: 1.800 dia. @ 28" water

.300 - 161.35
.400 - 194.00
.500 - 229.75
.600 - 290.05
.650 - 298.98
.700 - 309.63
.800 - 318.19

They are on a 557 with a single four intake and a 1250 dominator, flat top pistons, light tension rings with a vacuum pump, 6.800 steel rods and a billet 4.500 crank. Roller cam with a 114 lobe separation and 278* / 292* @ .050 with a lift in the upper .700 lift bracket. Home built step headers 33" long, 2" - 2 1/8" - 2 1/4" into a 4" collector with an X pipe and mufflers that are also 4". This is in a 65 Galaxie that weighs 3895lbs with me in it. I run a C-4 with a 10" converter, 4.86 gears, anda 31 X 10.5W slick. Car has went some 9.63's @ 141 with the 1250 on it. 60's in the 1.35 to 1.36 range off the footbrake. stillgottagsonitand frequent the local cruises a little just to keep em guessing.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brian
(Login BrianEyler)
146.186.4.219 Re: Charlie, info as asked.
No score for this post January 26 2005, 8:09 PM

Travis and I are good friends and I can honestly say I don't think he has any more work in putting his C-heads on his 557 then I had putting SCJ heads on my 512 as far as machine work and little nuances. If I had a 65' tank (I mean Galaxie) with the engine bay he has, I'd have C-heads. Their physical size (both width and height) is large by extra large. I think Travis' results in his heavy car speaks volumes on what these heads are capable of on a relatively low-rpm/high torque engine. Gary Blair was always a strong advocate of C-heads and I think he's right.

This message has been edited by BrianEyler from IP address 146.186.4.219 on Jan 26, 2005 8:11 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.183.12 Something I think that helps too........
No score for this post January 26 2005, 8:15 PM

.......are these cylinder heads are sufficient as well as efficient. Meaning they are big enough to get the job done but also are a proven power maker on just about anything even without a lot of work done to them.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.74 Thanks Travis; Steve, Chilly or ? Please Post This Data
No score for this post January 27 2005, 1:46 AM

in the Engine Forum under cylinder heads. If they are flowed by Jim Kuntz, you can be sure the info is accurate. Based on my testing of the C-460 heads and comparing flow numbers, I believe your info is accurate Travis. These are good flow numbers relative to your appliciation on the 557 CID engine. I suspect that the most important thing you did on the intake side was to lay back the short side radius some. Out of the box these heads tend to stall around .600" -.700" lift with just a bowl blend.

I'm wondering if when you mocked up the engine, did you put the heads on the 4.44 bore and see if the chambers were slightly wider or greater than your bore diameter. Did you put the heads on an empty block and look up the cylinder from underneath and check the fit of the chamber to the bore?

Thanks,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.183.246 I did mock it up before hand................
No score for this post January 27 2005, 5:59 AM

and the chamber is slightly larger on the front and rear sides of the cylinder. I did have to run a 4.670 cometic headgasket to get the head to seal to the block properly, the Felpro 1018 with the 4.500 bore left the stainless compression ring inside the chamber at the places mentioned above. I really did not look hard at this until I went to put the engine together after the heads were cc'd. Aparently they got opened up a little more than the first mockup.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.116.130 The Good Thing Is, You Are Smart Enough To Deal With The Issues.
No score for this post January 27 2005, 9:58 AM

And obviously you have Travis. Ford and Profiler both advise that the heads be used on 4.550" bores in their paperwork and you can see why they have to do that from their position. They have to assume most guys are just going to slap them on the engine and not take the time to mock-up and deal with the head gasket issues and chamber overhang. It sounds like you've done a good job of making them work.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TravisRice
(Login TravisRice)
4.249.192.125 Thanks Charlie
No score for this post January 27 2005, 3:45 PM

I have learned a lot from this forum in particular and also Brian Eyler and Charlie Booze. If I would have went with the A-head and had them cnc programed I feel that I would have had a head comparable to what I have now but minus the titanium valves and shaft rocker system. Price wise I actually did better considering I have an upgradable baseline C head right now. Gary Blair helped talk me into these and I have no regrets. I wanted a car that would turn heads and run a good number yet still retain all its glass and interior. I have done what everyone else still thinks is impossible. Thanks for the compliments Charlie.

PS; the engine picture on the engine build forum is no slouch either. 557 with old style SCJ's in a 63 1/2 Galaxie------10.0's all day long on the motor and sees alot of street driving. Greg is a friend of mine and we match race each year at the Ford Carlisle. Kind of cool.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - c-heads

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Blue Thunder head info

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

Blue Thunder "B" Heads - Flow Development Stages
December 21 2003 at 9:23 PM
No score for this post Charlie Evans (Login c.evans)
from IP address 205.188.209.73

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

Hey Guys,

I thought I'd post the stages of development that Lem and I went through on a set of Blue Thunder heads that we did for a friend of ours. He's using these heads on a pump gas engine. We did 'em last year.

The "B" heads are the ones with the Chevy style exhaust port, and as most of you know, it is a stock CobraJet style intake port. The valve sizes were 2.300" on the intake and 1.820" on the exhaust. All flow numbers are from our SuperFlow SFC 600 bench and are on a 4.625" bore and are @ 28" H2O. This data may be beneficial for some of you guys and Scott J. if you want to include them on your web site, for informational purposes you may. I'm not bragging or saying these are the best out there, because I'm sure they are not. I will say they are very good numbers and that they are good heads. These are an average of all 8 ports, with the decimels rounded off to the nearest whole number.

1. Out of the box - Unported - with a valve job.

Intake; .100=67,.200=129, .300=188, .400=251, .500=301, .600=322, .700=331, .750=335 total=1924
Exhaust .100=60,.200=114, .300=148, .400=176, .500=194,
.600=207, .700=215, .750=219 total=1333


2. "Super" Bowl Work/Blending

Intake; .100=71,.200=150, .300=209, .400=273, .500=329, .600=340, .700=343, .750=346 total=2061
Exhaust .100=61,.200=118, .300=158, .400=188, .500=213, .600=237, .700=258, .750=266 total=1499


3. Fully Ported Street/Strip

Intake; .100=72,.200=148, .300=213, .400=277, .500=331, .600=351, .700=356, .750=359 total=2107
Exhaust .100=67,.200=122, .300=163, .400=191, .500=215, .600=241, .700=265, .750=276 total=1540


4. Fully Race Ported. This past month we re-worked them again and Lem and I flowed them this morning.

Intake; .100=73,.200=152, .300=216, .400=281, .500=335, .600=363, .700=377, 750=380 total=2176
Exhaust .100=67,.200=122, .300=163, .400=198, .500=227. .600=251, .700=271, .750=280 total=1579


I hope this info is beneficial. Charlie


This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 152.163.252.232 on Jan 14, 2004 2:04 AM
This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 205.188.209.73 on Dec 21, 2003 9:27 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.209.73 Dyno Results From These Heads
No score for this post January 14 2004, 10:24 PM

Hey Guys,

We've got some good dyno results from the heads that I gave you flow numbers on in the above post. Bob sent some pictures also and I'll see if we can get them up.

The engine is a pump gas 572 CID and with a flat tappet cam and a single 4 barrel we got 718 lbs.ft. @ 4900 rpm and 743 Hp @ 6100 rpm.

With a tunnel ram and 2 X 4 we got 746 lbs.ft. @ 4900 rpm and 779 Hp @ 6300 rpm.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 64.12.96.200 on Jan 15, 2004 9:23 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.209.73 Burp # 2
No score for this post January 14 2004, 10:34 PM

n/m


This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 205.188.209.73 on Jan 14, 2004 10:51 PM
This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 205.188.209.73 on Jan 14, 2004 10:50 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


chilly460
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
168.73.245.58 Some pics from Charlie!!
No score for this post January 15 2004, 9:54 AM








Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


waterslinger
(Login waterslinger)
192.91.172.36 Re: Some pics from Charlie!!
No score for this post September 9 2005, 9:41 AM

My TFS intake has a standard 460 water neck. In the pic your intake takes a
small block set up. Why did TFS change it?

438ci Big Block, Powerglide 6400 stall, 9" rearend 4.56 gear, 4-Link suspension,

1/8 mile [email protected] on motor

http://www.geocities.com/ryan98gt/fordzilla

http://www.geocities.com/waterslinger1

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.130 Answer For Waterslinger
No score for this post September 9 2005, 11:13 AM

I'm pretty sure you are talking about the second picture down. That's the new style TFS single plane manifold that is currently on the market.

A little history is in order. When TFS made the old style tunnel ram manifold (that we call the John C. Holmes manifold), it's water neck was traditional BBF and the thermo housing surface was horizontal,, , , there were no clearance problems with the distributor caps because the runners were so long. As a sidenote the single plane manifold that carried either the TFS logo or Ford Motorsport logo had a horizontal mounting surface for the water neck also.

Then TFS redesigned the tunnel ram and made the runners shorter and the plenum bigger. This is current tunnel ram that they have on the market. With the shorter runners we had major clearance problems with the distributor cap. So the only distributor anybody could run was the MSD crank trigger or the Mallory Pro crank trigger. Because of the bigger Pro Style cap diameter with these crank triggers, there were clearance issues over there around the water neck/ thermo housing area and it was resolved by rotating things from a horizontal mounting surface to a vertical mounting surface. Thus using the SBF style housing.

Later on then, when TFS totally redesigned the single plane intake into the one in the second picture, they just continued that design feature.

I hope that helps,
Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 64.12.116.130 on Sep 9, 2005 11:15 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.129.47 Old style TFS TR manifolds .
No score for this post September 9 2005, 6:40 PM

There were two , the "holmes" and a unit that the runners were shorter than the new style manifold....damn near looked like a blower manifold the runners were so short .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Brian
(Login blownufo)
199.64.0.252 572 Destroyer
No score for this post September 8 2005, 2:00 PM

I think this would be a great crate motor to develop for that 572 Destroyer engine program you guys have been talk about.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.252.232 You All Need To Look At This !!
No score for this post January 15 2004, 8:08 PM

Hey Guys,

IMO this is some of the best information we've put up on the forum. I'm surprised you all aren't tripping all over it. I've given you flow numbers on Blue Thunder heads and then I've given you dyno numbers from the 572 CID Pump Gas engine they were used on. Back to back numbers between a 1X4 single plane and a 2X4 tunnel ram. We've got pictures of the engine on the dyno and then in a boat. Sorry that it's taking a long time to load, but just bear with it.

The engine made over well over 700 lbs.ft. of torque from the start of the pulls which was 4800 rpm through 5700 rpm, and then was still making 649 lbs. at 6300. We didn't necessarily build it seeking peak horsepower numbers, but we tried to build a "safe" torque monster that can run all day. We believe we succeeded in doing that. Questions or comments?

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

jeff hann
(no login)
205.188.209.73 AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No score for this post January 15 2004, 8:38 PM

It looks like you guys have been working your butts off. You better put some wings on that boat, because it looks like its gonna fly away. Thanks for the flow numbers, I've been looking at aluminum heads and comparing all the numbers I can get my grubby mitts on.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brow
(Login Brow)
203.221.68.14 WOW!!!
No score for this post January 15 2004, 8:47 PM

I think this an awesome combo. Would this engine combo work as well in a drag car as it will in the boat?
Would the cam be compatible with a bracket car?
What are the details of the combo? I have a set of B heads very similar to your street/strip combo (currently damaged from a piston to valve mishap that took out most of the bottom end) and will be putting together a stroker one day when I can afford it. I like the combo you have put together, not too many revs so it will last.
I will be repairing the heads and getting them ported to race specs.

I would ask you to do them but I live in Australia and it will cost too much to send them over. I have guys picked out over here who have done some impressive things with Trick Flow small block heads ( they even impressed the factory guys)

Thanks
Brow




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

LeRoy
(no login)
206.97.63.178 Awesome!
No score for this post January 15 2004, 8:50 PM

Great info, awesome job! Looks like you have a happy boat owner! nice flow numbers... and dyno numbers too!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Dave M
(Login 9sec_torino)
209.83.88.112 good info, thanks!!
No score for this post January 15 2004, 9:10 PM

I have been thinking over what you guys accomplished. Not too shabby! I would love to put that in my daily driver The pics are cool.
Flowed my unported "B" heads and #'s were nearly identical to your stage one. Will be getting mine back in a few weeks and hope they mirror your stage four. I was told maybe more.
My BT's will be used in a drag race N2O, 525", hi compression, single carb engine. I'm really hoping it will make 900+ N/A. The further I get into this build the more concerned I am it won't make the power. If I need to put the pipe down and start saving for a bigger N2O kit, let me know.
Seriously though, I hope you won't mind some questions when it gets to that point.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

madmudder
(no login)
24.162.95.220 I'm Impressed
No score for this post January 15 2004, 8:43 PM

Hey Charlie I wish I knew a little more about flow numbers. I do know about torque,horsepower and pictures and ya'll have me so stirred up I'm going to the back to find my girlfriend. (good job) Mac

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.96.200 Engine Data
No score for this post January 15 2004, 9:43 PM

The cam was 270* - 278* @ .050" The lobe seperation angle was 110* and it had a ground in 4* advance. So the intake lobe centerline was 106* and the exhaust was 114*. In open 29*, In close 67*, Ex open 73*, Ex close 25*. Lobe lift was .400" so it was .692" gross at the valve.

The compression ratio was a "safe" 10.25 : 1 with JE dished pistons on a 6.800" long Eagle rod. Bore was 4.605" and stroke was 4.300" using a cast steel Scat crank. Milodon pan and windage tray with just an external belt driven oil pump,(not a dry sump). Timing was at 37 - 38*

We could have upped the compression ratio some and certainly made more power, but we really wanted to keep it safe for pis poor pump gas that came from Poldunk Hollow.

The single plane Victor SVO manifold had an 1150 cfm Dominator on it and the tunnel ram is one that Jet Boat Bob made himself. It had a pair of Quick Fuel reworked 1050 Dominators on it.

Yes, it would "work" in a drag car and be a safe dependable engine. There at one time the timing got accidentally bumped up to 46* and the engine never pinged during a pull. (Always bring a spare timing light to your dyno sessions, so when you're high dollar light goes bad, you'll have a spare!)

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brow
(Login Brow)
203.221.64.227 Thanks
No score for this post January 15 2004, 11:21 PM

I was thinking of upping the compression to about 13:1 and converting over to alcohol with my Pro Systems 1170. I have a Victor ported to the heads and custom headers.
How would that go with the rest of your combo? I really do like keeping the revs down so it will have a long life. I don't mind spending some money to get the right parts. What block did you use?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.252.232 Answers To Questions
No score for this post January 16 2004, 12:32 AM

Brow,

We used a Ford A-460 block. That will accept the big bore of 4.605".

As for how would your upgrade plans "fit" with the rest of our combo? Okay - BUT - you'll be exceeding the 850 Hp limit of the Scat cast steel(9000) crank. Therefore you'll need to upgrade the crankshaft to be able to safely handle the horsepower upgrades such as compression & etc. You will need a good forged crank or a billet for your intended application.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Brow
(Login Brow)
203.194.40.147 Thanks again
No score for this post January 16 2004, 1:42 AM

Thanks again Charlie,
I don't know when I will be doing the rebuild - I just moved state and my little boy is just turning 1 with another kid in the near future plans as well as a new house etc.
I look forward to a similar combo to what you have built, but will have to up the budget a bit to include better block and crank.

I will keep up with the info on this forum so I can build the best I can afford.

Brow

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

BZstang
(Login BZstang)
152.163.252.232 NICE JOB
No score for this post January 16 2004, 8:12 AM

Charlie. I didn't see it or i missed it you are running a shorter stroke crank than 4.5. If so i would of thought the HP numbers would of come in at a little higher rpm?. Or is it because the cam is 4 degrees advance?. Or is it that T-ram with its long runners?. Anyway great job that is some pretty impressive picture's you have there good luck.BZ

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Rich L
(no login)
151.203.41.131 Re. Good Job
No score for this post January 16 2004, 8:29 AM

Hey Bob get OFF the Blabbing and call me.Tubular Automotive called . They'r bending 2 1/4 pipes next week and they want you'r car NOW!! Latest Monday.If you can't get the heads on in time I'll do it. Call me Rich L

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.209.73 Horsepower and RPM
No score for this post January 16 2004, 12:06 PM

Bobby,

Good questions. Yes we are running a 4.300" stroke crankshaft with this pump gas deal.

Pull # 10 gave the following results with pump gas and 36.5* timing.
I'm just giving the upper numbers;
5600 = 755 Hp
5700 = 758
5800 = 764
5900 = 771
6000 = 773
6100 = 770
6200 = 776
6300 = 779
6400 = 774
6500 = 772

6500 rpm was where we stopped the pulls. Last thing we did was throw some Torco 116 race gas in it. As Phillip said this was the wrong application, meaning 110 would have been good enough, but here are the results with the timing bumped to 38.5*
5600 = 750 Hp
5700 = 759
5800 = 765
5900 = 771
6000 = 771
6100 = 773
6200 = 778
6300 = 780
6400 = 781
6500 = 781

So we see the engine peaked out just a little bit higher as you thought it might Bobby. Remember our objective was to build a safe pump gas engine that would be good for riding around and drinking beer and eating fried chicken. This engine has dished JE pistons and one thing Lem said was that; "This engine is just a set of flat tops and a roller cam way from being a good race engine!" True statement.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Doug Rahn
(no login)
152.163.252.232 Very impressive Charlie.
No score for this post January 16 2004, 1:37 PM

Is that your shop? It looks like it's loaded with lots of goodies.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

lem evans
(no login)
12.148.40.83 Re: Very impressive Charlie.
No score for this post January 16 2004, 3:37 PM

That Charlie sure is impressive isn't he!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Doug Rahn
(no login)
64.12.96.200 Sorry Lem.
No score for this post January 17 2004, 5:57 AM

I didn't mean to leave you out of the mix. Your just as impressive as Charlie!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

lem evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 Thanks, but thats not my point..
No score for this post January 17 2004, 10:17 AM

Just liked the sound of "impressive Charlie" !

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

lem evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 Sorry Doug.
No score for this post January 17 2004, 10:21 AM

I meant "Very impressive Charlie". That would be a great login name for Charlie!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Doug Rahn
(no login)
205.188.209.73 That's a good one Lem! lol
No score for this post January 17 2004, 12:54 PM

Did you hear that Charlie?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.252.232 Lem Is Just A Parts Delivery Boy !!
No score for this post January 18 2004, 10:48 PM

Doug,

I hear ya'! I'm sorry but Phillip O. and I were at the NHRA Div 3 Awards Banquet this past weekend at Indy, so I've been gone for a few days.

I'm also sorry that Lem was "tripping" about the very impressive Charlie stuff. I don't know what I do to deserve all the abuse that Lem gives me. He always embarrasses all of us, that's one reason we left him at home this weekend and didn't let him rub elbows with the sponsors at Indy.

To answer your question that's Bob Hardison's well equiped garage, complete with bathroom, washer, dryer kitchen, stocked refrigerator, TV, stereo and etc. Then the good stuff is about 4 welders, a Bridgeport, lathe, grinders and etc. Bob, Lawes, Phillip and myself do all the work, in fact if the truth be known, we just use Lem as the parts delivery boy! Heh-he!

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

lem evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 Very impressive , Very impressive Charlie.
No score for this post January 19 2004, 9:34 AM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Sam Lam
(no login)
64.40.92.134 Octane
No score for this post January 16 2004, 4:43 PM

What Octane was the Pump gas , do you tink that the 110 would give more HP than the 116

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

lem evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 92 pump octane and yes. n/m
No score for this post January 16 2004, 8:45 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Sam Lam
(no login)
64.40.92.134 What is the cut off
No score for this post January 19 2004, 10:12 AM

At what compression would you go to the 116
Or may be what is the most compression would run on the 110

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Sam Lam
(no login)
64.40.92.134 What is the cut off
No score for this post January 19 2004, 10:21 AM

At what compression would you go to the 116
Or may be what is the most compression would run on the 110

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

lem evans
(no login)
12.148.40.83 Re: What is the cut off
No score for this post January 19 2004, 11:11 AM

Torco 110 is good for 13/13.5 easy enough.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

MY514Mach1
(no login)
152.163.252.135 Here's some more BLUE THUNDER info (FORD EX)
No score for this post January 18 2004, 1:02 AM

514, 13.93com., 40 degree timming, roller cam, victor w1300 cfm pro sytem carb.

7200 rpm 779.5 HP/ 616.2 TQ (peak of 7 pulls on Sunoco Supreme)

Heads 2.250 intake/ 1.880 exaust on 4.5 bore @28"
.100 75 cfm 63 cfm
.200 142 113
.300 210 151
.400 275 184
.500 307 214
.600 341 239
.700 367 256
.800 380 270

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.252.232 Scott, aka The Mad Porter, Get Your BT #'s Here
No score for this post February 17 2004, 6:40 PM

Scott,

If you can pull your BT flow numbers from this thread. There are 4 stages of development from out of the box to fully race ported.

Thanks, Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login Scott429)
131.191.42.160 I thank you good sir !!!
No score for this post February 17 2004, 6:45 PM

I will note in the chart that the numbers come from the nimble fingers of Charlie Evans the griller of fine steaks (unless lem is buyin') ???

Ohh hope that doesn't get me in dutch.!!!

Scott J. / RHP
"If ya got flow roast'em"
http://reincarnation-automotive.com



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(no login)
12.77.47.239 Charlie, those are nice numbers. Are they with a 2.300 and 1.800? n/m
No score for this post February 17 2004, 8:55 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(no login)
68.235.57.32 2.300" / 1.820" n/m
No score for this post February 17 2004, 9:47 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Anonymous
(no login)
67.72.204.33 Re: Blue Thunder &quote;B&quote; Heads - Flow Development Stages
No score for this post February 17 2004, 7:39 PM

The exhaust ports sure flow a lot of air - probably a GREAT head for nitrous.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Anonymous
(no login)
67.72.204.33 Nitrous anyone ??
No score for this post February 17 2004, 7:41 PM

The exhaust ports sure flow a lot of air - probably a GREAT head for nitrous.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 DAVE MEISTER This Bud's For You,
No score for this post September 8 2005, 1:09 AM

I mean bump. Here is the flow data for the Blue Thunder heads we've been talking about and pictures of the manifold also.

Hope this helps,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Dave Meister
(Login 8sec_torino)
216.138.178.154 let's crack a few and...
No score for this post September 9 2005, 7:47 PM

get Bob hammered (might take some shine) then YOU ask him if he'll sell those heads. Those numbers kick ***!! I'd really like to have those heads right about now and see how much N2O my fancy, new bottom end will take(thanks Greg Pettit). Bob's right though, it would be better to sell the entire engine.

Dave

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Kyle Ladowski
(Login bbf468)
206.40.119.80 How much more do you
No score for this post September 8 2005, 1:30 AM

Think a set of "a" heads would make on this engine?

Kyle

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Kyle, I Think At Least 100 Hp
No score for this post September 8 2005, 2:04 AM

The peak intake flow numbers would go from 380cfm to 450 cfm. That's 70 cfm at peak and should be around 100 Hp. We are kinda' anxious to try it and probally will sometime in the next year. I sent you another VIP e-mail.

Charlie

This message has been edited by c.evans from IP address 152.163.100.130 on Sep 8, 2005 10:42 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


waterslinger
(Login waterslinger)
69.128.246.8 Re: Kyle, I Think At Least 100 Hp
No score for this post September 8 2005, 7:37 PM

Nice set up. Did not see any info on boat set up. Can you dyno with wet headers? Just wonder
what kind of power it kills.

438ci Big Block, Powerglide 6400 stall, 9" rearend 4.56 gear, 4-Link suspension,

1/8 mile [email protected] on motor

http://www.geocities.com/ryan98gt/fordzilla

http://www.geocities.com/waterslinger1

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.116.130 Waterslinger; Lem or Jet Boat Bob
No score for this post September 9 2005, 11:22 AM

need to answer any questions about that boat hull. That's their field of expertise, not mine. That particular orange hull has since been sold, but Bob still has the engine. I guess it's for sale too, if a person comes up with the "right money".

As for dynoing wet headers, no we can't. In hindsight that's something I wish we could do, and when Bret Powell was building his new DTS dyno cell, I strongly advised him to be able to collect exhaust gases from either upright truck pullers headers, to upswept dragster headers including boat headers and then the traditional door car headers.

So, I think Pullin' Bret can do that. You may want to contact him, PFC Engines in Missouri.

Hope this helps,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


waterslinger
(Login waterslinger)
192.91.147.34 Re: Waterslinger; Lem or Jet Boat Bob
No score for this post September 9 2005, 11:27 AM

I am sure the up sweep or traditional down sweep headers have a impact on power. Would make for a fun day on the dyno to see.

438ci Big Block, Powerglide 6400 stall, 9" rearend 4.56 gear, 4-Link suspension,

1/8 mile [email protected] on motor

http://www.geocities.com/ryan98gt/fordzilla

http://www.geocities.com/waterslinger1

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - Blue Thunder "B" Heads - Flow Development Stages

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
EX514 Porting info

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

Pictures Of Charlie Evans work on my EX-514 heads. Many Pics.
October 7 2005 at 11:54 PM
No score for this post
Larry M (Login www.truckpulls.com)
from IP address 209.48.244.162

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

I got some pictures from Lem tonight of the work being done by Charlie on my iron EX-514 heads. These are being re-done for a build gone bad from last year. I lost my engine this August and contacted Lem/Charlie for the autopsy and resurection of my beast. This is a 521ci in a pulling truck.

This is a finished chamber.



This is a port as found, before Charlie does his thang to her....and you see his lines drawn to show the areas of interest...

This



This is exactly as found prior to his marking.



This looks to be a finished chamber also...I am sure charlie can describe better what is going on...



This is another chamber ready to be worked on with markings to show the area of interest.

This is a pic of the chamber from just above before being marked up with a pen...

This is the intake port opening of the head as found upon disassembly.... Notice the severe mismatch of the gasket to the port that was not corrected before.

This here is the port mouth after being opened to more closely resemble the intake/gasket opening.

This is the non EX-514 A-460 Intake for comparison to the EX intake below it.

This is the EX-514 intake from my engine. I am not sure if Charlie had to perform any work to this or not...?



We are going to be going with a Titanium intake valve in the heads this time in place of the Ferrea 6000 series valves and we are going to replace the damaged 1.94" Exhaust valves with Ferrea 1000 Series Super Comp Exhaust valves in a 1.88" diameter.



www.truckpulls.com .......Support the sport...buy a Cobra shirt or sweatshirt!

79 F-250 Pulling Truck
521ci Engine with Art Carr/CPTTransmission full roller C-6, Dana 60/Dana 80 drivetrain by Greensburg Machine and Driveline, Crane Cam and ignition, Jessel Shaft rockers, Pro-Systems Dominator, D1 2 bolt block with Scatt 9000 4.3" crank and Eagle H-beam rods, Flow Technologies EX-514 A-460 heads and EX-514 Intake.....produces over 250 HP and under 1000 HP at all times...!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply

S.Vincent
(Login S.Vincent)
72.4.12.123 Re: Pictures Of Charlie Evans work on my EX-514 heads. Many Pics.
No score for this post October 8 2005, 8:49 AM

Larry your heads look better in person than in the photos. Charlie is really picking up the flow. Those are some massive chunks of iron you have there! A fella could "bust a nut" if he had to lug those rascals around very much!LOL!


"All Right You Sons-a-Bitches, Let's Have a Race!"...Smokey Yunnick

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bret Powell
(Login PullinBret)
208.31.189.214 Wow...Looks like...
No score for this post October 8 2005, 10:04 AM

the "previous" builder left a lot of stones unturned.

Best to you Larry, you've payed dearly(in the past build)! Now your in good hands...so next year go thump those Chevies!

"PFC Engines" 573-793-2177
DTS Dyno and SuperFlow SF600 equipped!

"Pullin For Christ"








This message has been edited by PullinBret from IP address 208.31.189.245 on Oct 8, 2005 11:03 AM
This message has been edited by PullinBret from IP address 208.31.189.214 on Oct 8, 2005 10:06 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

paul
(Login pcl)
206.146.72.119 Is any body a dealer for the EX product on this site?:::
No score for this post October 8 2005, 11:05 AM

does flow tech. still have the iron heads available? did there web site move or just shut down? nice heads larry I realy need to look into a set for my truck thanks for any help here-----------Paul from Mn.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.129.47 manifold
No score for this post October 8 2005, 11:14 AM

the other unit is a Victor...not an "A" .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

LivermoreDave
(Login LivermoreDave)
68.155.197.201 WOW...Looks like.........
No score for this post October 8 2005, 11:21 AM

.... something I would do (the before Charlie pics)! Larry I feel assured that Charlie will uncover some un-found power within your parts! It was nice to meet you and your dad while in our area. After a day with Lem, can you spell MF? You are in goods hands with Charlie and Lem, believe it or not! Looking over your pics, I think when you "step on it" for the first time after the Evans brother's re-build you will have the "WOW FACTOR"! Man these eggs are good! Good day and good luck, Dave....Oh! I complained about those "festival burgers" to the city council, and explained that my shirt tail would have been easier to chew!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Larry M
(Login www.truckpulls.com)
209.48.244.129 Re: WOW...Looks like.........
No score for this post October 8 2005, 2:09 PM


Yea, we ate those burgers as well...and even mentioned on the way home from meeting you guys that the burgers in Pittsburgh are much better.....we actually kill us some cows and use the meat rather than the hide! I really was impressed with the hospitality of you guys. Lem and Charlie as well as yourself took the time to invite us to your local home town street bizzar for food and a walk with Charlie to the little show car area where he explained some of the interesting cars history to me. He also mentored me in seeing the light.....the light of the best way to tackle our serious issues and still not be forced into me selling my body on the corner for pennies...lol. The beer was good and cold as well...and that means alot!

I am feeling very good about the relationship between us and the Charlie/Lem factor...they are a bit much at first, almost scared me...but once you learn that they are not gonna hit each other, and not gonna get to wild....they becaome quite entertaining!

I trust that this build will make us very happy. We found many problem areas that where just plain stupid, things that just did not make sense, and things that are really unexplainable. We are going to contentrate building the engine the way it really should have been last time. We are not spending alot of cash on fluff and fancy stuff, just spending the smartest money we can.

After the loss of the block we decided for the cost of doing a replacement D1VE, we may as well goto the FMS A-460 block. This will be a good move, and we could have done it last year during that assembly...but thank the Lord that we didn't.....we would have lost that cylinder in a FMS block and really been pissed. I have pictures of the old block and of the failures that were the most blatent upon initial tear down....its an amazing thing. My old engine most have been tough, cause it didn't look like it should lasted more than a min or two! That thing held tough for 17 pulls and really did not do bad. I never quite thought it was doing what it should have, but I blamed that on thinking that everyone else was just doing better than I predicted. Next year we will see, I really expect to be finishing in the 4th to 6th position more often...not the 6th to 8th position we seemed so comfortable in this past summer.

There are still some challanges ahead for Charlie, he has to think about camshaft selection, we still have issues with my maladjusted carb that may need to visit Patrick at Pro-Systems and we need to decide what crank we can afford to go with...another 9000 series cast crank or a forged unit if they ever come from over the big pond. We know we just dont have the cash for the 2 grand+ cranks that are out there...maybe in 2 years we can. Also, I may be telling Charlie that I want to to green light the external oil pump that he recomended, that will depend on overtime hours in the next month or 2.

I love my engine guy I really do..

I trust my engine builder, dont you too?

I need my engine builder to keep my trust...

by not turning my $16 grand into a pile of rust....

I hate my OLD engine builder, he cheats and lies....

This is how a thief finds out how many a man dies....

Stealing a mans passion is a dangerous game...

Because reputations flow like water...yes just the same...

Screw me once and shame on me.....

You wont screw my pals, just wait and see....

I'll scream it from roof tops and mountain peaks...

That you lie, cheat and steal every time one of you speaks...





www.truckpulls.com .......Support the sport...buy a Cobra shirt or sweatshirt!

79 F-250 Pulling Truck
521ci Engine with Art Carr/CPTTransmission full roller C-6, Dana 60/Dana 80 drivetrain by Greensburg Machine and Driveline, Crane Cam and ignition, Jessel Shaft rockers, Pro-Systems Dominator, D1 2 bolt block with Scatt 9000 4.3" crank and Eagle H-beam rods, Flow Technologies EX-514 A-460 heads and EX-514 Intake.....produces over 250 HP and under 1000 HP at all times...!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Paul Kane
(Login PaulKane)
66.245.140.56 Charlie, Nice Detail Work on The Unshrouding. HEY LIVERMORE DAVE:
No score for this post October 8 2005, 3:00 PM

I didn't get to see you when I was out there. I've been meaning to drop you a line about that, but now I am quite obligated to do so. Thank you for the shipping assistance on my crate of components.

Paul




Introducing:



High Flow Dynamics


Performance Components for the 429/460 Engine Family


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.116.134 Head Porting Tech - Long
No score for this post October 9 2005, 12:47 AM

Hey Guys,

When Larry first contacted us about rebuilding the engine, he explained that he’d dropped or bent an exhaust valve and how he wished that he had changed valve springs before this had happened. I asked him how many dyno pulls and runs were on the engine and there weren’t enough to warrant changing springs IMO. I suggested that he hold on and that we might find another cause. So when they brought the engine down we disassembled the engine in their presence and found that all 8 exhaust valves had been hitting the sides of the cylinder walls. They had left some pretty nasty gouges in the walls and the one valve had stood all the abuse it could stand and just gave up the ghost. The problem was the builder had used the big 1.940" exhaust valve on a . 4.390" bore engine (.030" over). You don’t do that with any A-460 heads, whether they be Ford Motorsport, TFS, EX 514, or Eliminator. I thought all BBF engine builders knew that, but apparently not this one. We had to cut the valve and guide out of the head and while doing so we noticed other problems. Lem commented on how bad the chambers looked and the exhaust seats were all beat up from the pounding they took with slightly bent valves not seating correctly. He also noticed that none of the intake valves had a backcut, and again that’s a no-no. So the rest of this data is about how we took a "sows ear" and made a "silk purse" out of it.

I cleaned the heads up with mineral spirits and wirebrushed the valves to get all the carbon and oil out of the ports and off the valves in order to do a good baseline flow test. All flow tests were conducted on a 4.625" bore @ 28"H2O, on a SuperFlow SF600 with the FlowCom computer program. We use the Brzezinski Slider Plate system and a machined Lexan radiused entry for repeatablity. The cfm numbers are an average of all 4 cylinders on one head.

1. INTAKES; Baseline
.100=73, .200=133.5, .300=187.3, .400=245.5, .500=305.3, .600=352.8, .700=382, .800=395.8 Total = 2075.2 cfm

Now anybody that knows anything at all about A-460 heads, knows that those numbers are very poor, especially the mid-lift numbers. So the work proceeded. The first step while the 100+ lb. cast iron head was still on the flow bench, was to slide it over and drop out the intake valves and put a proper backcut on them. Then reinstall them and do another flow test.

2. INTAKES; Backcut
.100=75.5, .200=140, .300=201.5, .400=261.5, .500=318.5, .600=358.5, .700=382, .800=397 Total = 2134.8 cfm, = +2.8% gain.

This is a textbook example of what backcutting the intake valves will do for you. Notice that it helped the low and mid-lift flow numbers and essentially the peak numbers stayed the same. Going form 187.3 cfm to 201.5 cfm is a gain of 14 numbers at .300 and likewise a gain of 16 numbers at .400" lift, and a gain of 13 numbers at .500" lift. That was pretty easy for 20 minutes worth of work. I’m disappointed that the previous engine builder didn’t backcut the valves. Next up is some chamber work and properly unshrouding the valves.

3. INTAKES; 30 Minutes of Chamber Work
.100=77, .200=152, .300=228.5, .400=294.5, .500=345, .600=372.5, .700=386.5, .800=397 Total =2253 cfm, = +5.5% gain

In order to achieve this we worked on removing some of the mountains and valleys that were in the chamber. There are two chambers pictured that are shiny have had the work done to them. There are two other chambers where I have marked on them with a silver paint stick were I’m going to grind. Actually the other cylinder head’s chambers were a little worse than these pictured. It was like they made an unshrouding cut but that left a big ridge around the valves that needed to be worked out by hand and laid back some.

Warren Johnson once said in a SpeedReading article in National dragster that; "We want the greatest flow possible through the smallets port possible." Thus far we have gained 41 cfm @ .300" valve lift, 50 cfm @ .400" valve lift, 40 cfm @ .500, and 20 cfm @ .600. That’s impressive and we haven’t even touched the port yet! Basically as I told Larry, the air was pissed off and I’m just trying to unpiss the air and let the head flow like what it should, like what it wants to. Those of us who are head porters and really spend some time on the flow bench know that the sound will tell you a lot. Well, when I started the air sounded lazy and now it starting to sound sharp and crisp. Next up, some bowl work.

4. INTAKES; Bowl Work
.100=76, .200=151, .300=233.5, .400=302.5, .500=356.5, .600=382, .700=397, .800=412.5 Total = 2311cfm, = +2.5% gain.

In this case I did some bowl work in critical areas and a little bit of work on the short side radius. This is the first operation where I‘ve done anything before the valve seat and I really didn’t add that much volume to the runners. The bowl work did result in an increase in flow at the higher lift points and we see the port going from 397 cfm to 412.5 cfm @ .800" lift. Next up will be a little port match job at the entry.

5. INTAKES; Port Match
.100=75.5, .200=156.5, .300=235.5, .400=307.5, .500=361, .600=386.5, .700=402, .800=417.5 Total = 2342 cfm, = 1.3% gain.

The reason that we needed to do a port match at the runner entry is that the exit of the EX 514 manifold was bigger than the port entry and we had a pretty bad mismatch where the two joined. I didn’t go out to gasket size, I just wanted to get the entry slightly larger than the manifold runner exit. I do believe that this operation contributed a few cc’s of port volume though.

6. INTAKES: Summary Thus Far

I haven’t done a proper competition valve job yet, I’m still playing with the old valve job. Still to come will be the new titanium intake valves and I expect flow to increase even more once the valve job is done. I really don’t plan on porting the entire intake track because this is a 521 CID engine and Larry has expressed to me how important it is not to have the ports too big and I agree.

So here is some volume data. The unported intake runners average 327 cc’s. The runners I have worked on now average 332 cc’s. That’s a gain of 5 cc’s or 1.5%. Let’s do some math. The original baseline flow total was 2075.2 cfm. As of now the ports flow a total of 2342 cfm. That’s an increase of 12.85% in total flow. So, 12.85% minus the 1.5% gain in volume, equals an 11.35% gain in VELOCITY. That’s an overall increase of all lift points and of course the valve "sees" that twice on both the opening flank and the closing flank of the lobe. If we look at certain mid-lift points such as .400" lift, we’ve gone from 245.5 cfm to 307.5 cfm. That’s 62 cfm or an increase of 25.3% of flow. Increasing the mid-lift flow tends to help the engines have better torque and they are less "peaky". Next up are the exhaust ports.

1. EXHAUSTS; Baseline
.100=62.5, .200=96.8, .300=126.8, .400=162.8, .500=198.8, .600=233, .700=260, .800=277.3 Total = 1418 cfm

Again these numbers suck, those ports ought to be going over 300 cfm for sure. So I did some chamber work first. We generally don’t backcut the exhaust valves because it rarely helps flow.

2. EXHAUSTS; 30 Minutes of Chamber Work.
.100=63.5, .200=107, .300=140, .400=173, .500=211, .600=243.5, .700=266.5, .800=279 Total = 1483.5 cfm, = +4.6% gain.

Basically I just made the transition from the combustion chamber into the top angle of the valve job better. I got rid of the ridge that I marked with silver paint that was around the exhaust valve and had it pocketed. I took a good bit of material away from the long side. We’ll go to the bowl work next.

3. EXHAUSTS; Bowl Work.
.100=65, .200=107.5, .300=144.5, .400=187, .500=226.5, .600=259, .700=284, .800=300 Total = 1573.5 cfm, = + 6.0% gain.

The exhaust bowls like to be "blown out" in the area where they go around the guide boss. I also streamlined the guide boss some. We’d have higher flow numbers with a proper tuliped titanium valve, but that’s not in the budget so right now I’m still playing with the old valves and the old valve job. I was disappointed that the previous engine builder used the Ferrea 6000 Series valves in this engine. That’s a middle grade valve and it clearly says so in the Ferrea catalog. We’ll be going with the better grade of Ferrea valve, the Competition Plus Series. This engine is a "high end" engine with a Jessel shaft rocker arm system and it will be seeing 9000 rpm, but with a middle grade valve??? Next up a little more exhaust port work and polishing.

4. EXHAUSTS; Port Work
.100=65.3, .200=110.3, .300=145.8, .400=187, .500=226.8, .600=259.3, .700=285, .800=302 Total = 1581.5 cfm, = +0.5% gain.

Not as much gain is created the further you get away from the valve seat and this is a classic example of it

5. EXHAUSTS: Summary Thus Far
We’ve gone from a total of 1418 cfm to 1581.5 cfm , so that’s an 11.53% increase in total flow. Meanwhile the exhaust ports unported volume averaged 173.5 cc’s and now the ported volume is only 175.5 cc’s. That’s an increase of only 2 cc’s or 1.1%. So, 11.5% gain in flow minus 1.1% gain in volume means we have a 10.43% increase in VELOCITY. Again I expect more when I get a proper valve job done and maybe I can post some more info later. That’s all folks!

Hope this helps,
Charlie





Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Larry M
(Login www.truckpulls.com)
209.48.244.79 Re: Head Porting Tech - Long
No score for this post October 9 2005, 1:06 AM


Charlie,

Just to toss it out at you, I spoke to my Father today about the Ex valves and he asked me if we wanted to, and what the advantage would be to going with a Titanium Ex valve. I told him that you had not mentioned it, and that I was under the impression that it was money not well spent because of the smaller size compared to the intake...it would not really allow us to back off of the spring pressure as a whole like the intakes would. If I am incorrect feel free to guide me in.... Would we be better served extending the budget on the Titanium Ex valves, or wait and see if we are forced to buy a more expensive crank and apply the money towards that if need be. In other words, there may be enough buffer-cash to dance around the idea of adding a few dollars more to the package than we spoke about, but not enough to allow Carte Blanche.......where would the extra buy us the most.

I trust my engine builder, so I'll go the way you say. By the way, did you like my poetic outburst? I felt inspired...lol.



www.truckpulls.com .......Support the sport...buy a Cobra shirt or sweatshirt!

79 F-250 Pulling Truck
521ci Engine with Art Carr/CPTTransmission full roller C-6, Dana 60/Dana 80 drivetrain by Greensburg Machine and Driveline, Crane Cam and ignition, Jessel Shaft rockers, Pro-Systems Dominator, D1 2 bolt block with Scatt 9000 4.3" crank and Eagle H-beam rods, Flow Technologies EX-514 A-460 heads and EX-514 Intake.....produces over 250 HP and under 1000 HP at all times...!

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.116.134 Best Money Spent
No score for this post October 9 2005, 1:18 AM

in this case Larry, would be to get new titanium intake valves and stay with new stainless steel exhaust valves. You'll get 95% of the benefits this way. Lem and I really want to see you upgrade the crankshaft and that takes priority over titanium exhaust valves. We need to build "our house" on a solid foundation, not a sandy foundation. That's the reason for a SVO block and a billet or forged crankshaft.

As for your poetry, I like it!

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.129.47 Correct !
No score for this post October 9 2005, 6:36 PM

No room for a $400 crank and $800 exh valves here .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Paul Kane
(Login PaulKane)
207.69.139.156 Now THAT Was...
No score for this post October 9 2005, 2:44 AM

...great reading and very useful information! Thanks Charlie for taking the time to lay that all out!

Everyone remember: Professor Charlie Evans has been doing this for decades and is under no obligation to provide the forum with his exhaustive research and findings. He does so as a kind favor, kind gesture, and probably because for a very long time he has been (and therefore always will be) a teacher. I think he deserves a standing ovation for providing such a clear and insightful step-by-step explanation of what can be gained from certain "tweaks" on certain head's features.

I confess there are some "findings" of my own that I choose to keep to myself; I think it's safe to say that Charlie doesn't reveal near everything he himself has learned over the years. We should all be grateful for the info shared on this forum.

Thanks Professor Evans!

Paul




Introducing:



High Flow Dynamics


Performance Components for the 429/460 Engine Family


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.33.129 I'll second that paul...
No score for this post October 9 2005, 7:28 AM

Charlie Evans is top notch.

No good engine builder gives away all of the secrets but very many are shared here so all can benefit for the good of the hobby.




Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com






http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/scottjohnston




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

TorinoStyle2
(Login TorinoStyle)
24.182.4.243 I agree too!
No score for this post October 9 2005, 1:55 PM

That is a very well writen description of what is going on inside the cyl. head.
Some folks will explain things in a sort of vauge way, but this is a text that clearly points out what is being worked on and where that work is leading to.......excellent!

The wise man builds his house upon the rock!! gotta love that...words to live by!

I would like to throw in my worthless 2 cents in here and say that I would go with the stainless exhaust valves instead of titaniums.
Titanium does'nt like to be subjected to high heat and large spring pressure loads.
I used to help a friend with his roundy-round Clevelands, and we were running titanium valves in them, and we lost two motors due to the exhaust valve heads breaking off.
9200 RPM's on the gas and off the gas, then on the gas again repeatedly took its toll.
We switched to premium stanless exhaust valves and never experienced another valve problem again.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bret Powell
(Login PullinBret)
208.31.189.244 Thanks Charlie and Larry...
No score for this post October 9 2005, 3:13 PM

Thank you Charlie for your valued information and exhaustive typing that you so desired to share with us. This is very good information that few others would care to share. I for one of several appreciate it very much.

To Larry thanks for offering to let info on your build be put out open to the public on a very competitive sport! Most, including myself won't let too much out of the bag because we can't afford to. I'm sure there will be some hidden information and rightfully so.

To the engine builder...Shame on you! You've cost someone much hard earned money and if you are not capable of building something like this...you should've been up front with him. This build had many mistakes that should have not been so and at a premium price. I have certainly went into unchartered waters with customers...but when I do I tell them so and let the customer make the decision as to whether or not to put there faith in my abilities! Obviously we have to attempt to explore areas we have never done or we will never get better at what we do.

There are a lot more things I'd like to say about this because of my personal beliefs, but will keep them to myself!

JMHO!

"PFC Engines" 573-793-2177
DTS Dyno and SuperFlow SF600 equipped!

"Pullin For Christ"








Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DAVID
(Login D.I.L.L.I.G.A.S.)
152.163.100.130 Another great thread & pic's to save.......
No score for this post October 9 2005, 4:23 PM

...Just amazing the amount of good info on this site!



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.129.47 332cc
No score for this post October 11 2005, 9:01 PM

"A" intake ports w/2.350" intake valves and less than 340cc are very moderate in size ....more flow to come IMO .

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Thanks Guys For The Kind Words!
No score for this post October 9 2005, 6:47 PM

I appreciate it. As a sidenote to to the other head porters and Larry, I did bite the dust and get a cast iron shard in my eye and had to go get it drilled out, then a followup visit the next day. I was wearing glasses, but it still got me! We all know that's part of the job with head porting, it just's a pain in the buttXXX (eye) to put up with. My optometrist jokingly asked me how many times have I been in there to get steel out of my eyes, and I just replied "Too many!".

Paul pcl, We're not dealers for Flow Technology and I don't know who is. I do know we can get the heads from them, and you may just want to see about getting them directly. If you are talking about the cast iron heads, you don't want to be shipping them all over the country. UPS has a surcharge for boxes over 70 lbs and these babies are 98 lbs totally bare.

Bret, if your truck pulling rules simply call for cast iron heads, then these heads are the way to go. I know your heads flow over 400 cfm also, but you've got to remember we're flowing just air on the bench. With the addition of fuel, it's heavier mass and considering the total air/fuel mixture, the flow distribution pattern is going to be better with these taller intake ports than a DOOE-R head.

Hope this helps,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Kyle Ladowski
(Login bbf468)
206.40.119.80 Well Charlie...
No score for this post October 11 2005, 9:50 PM

I find it really neat doing what you did with the numbers and the step by step of what is started with and what the end result is. I have a few pads of paper next to my bench with my chicken scratches on them. It is just like the super flow manual says pay attention to the area nearest the seat. I have lost flow doing a valve job something like 15 to 20 cfm and then found that it was were the 60 degree met the port and where the 30 degree and radius blended into the chamber. A few minutes with a cartridge roll and we were right back where we started and some times a little bit better. And all this time I thought I was doing "a good valve job". I have too seen that a little work in the right places on certain heads really seems to help. Well at least on the flow bench. A little gain here and there may not seem like much, but when you take what you started with and gain a little in 5 or 6 places it can really start to add up.

Charlie keep up the excellent work. Head work is so time consuming, it is wonderful that you share the info that you do with all of us that are trying to learn.

Kyle

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Njall
(Login Njall)
194.144.95.153 Charlie´s topic sentence, read on:
No score for this post October 12 2005, 9:21 AM


Copied and pasted I find the below excerpt from Charlies´ report to be the most descriptive of all bowl work info I have ever seen:

"The exhaust bowls like to be "blown out" in the area where they go around the guide boss. I also streamlined the guide boss some". (Evans)

Give credit where credit is due.

I have one small question: Does the same science apply to bowl work on the intake side?

Congrats on a great piece of work and the willingness to share the knowledge.

(I am working on a set of D0OEs and D0VEs)

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bret Powell
(Login PullinBret)
208.31.189.240 Njall...
No score for this post October 12 2005, 9:31 AM

On the DOOE stay away from the exhaust bowl area with a burr, and only lightly sand roll the area smooth that is closest to the intake valve. That area is dangerously thin. But, do streamline the exhaust guide area by making it wrap around the guide kind of clockwise.

On the DOOE the best intake improvements will be by widening the floor near the short turn and reshaping the short turn.

"PFC Engines" 573-793-2177
DTS Dyno and SuperFlow SF600 equipped!

"Pullin For Christ"








Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.100.130 Bump For Norman, and Thanks Kyle & Njall n/m
No score for this post October 15 2005, 11:13 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - Pictures Of Charlie Evans work on my EX-514 heads. Many Pics.

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
C460 info with tulip versus nailhead valve details

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

Flow Test Results; Dan Tyner's Heads
November 6 2005 at 1:15 PM
No score for this post Charlie Evans (Login c.evans)
from IP address 64.12.117.9

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

Hey guys,

Saturday was vistors day around here and we had four guests come in from out of town. Besides the usual eating, drinking, bench racing, and hell raising, we also went to the machine shop and conducted some flow tests. We flowed an Edelbrock Performer head, a TFS A-460 head, a FRPP C-460 head and were flowing primarily for demonstration purposes for our guests.

With Dan Tyner's C-460 heads we where able to show some classic examples of;

1. What a backcut does on an intake valve.
2. The effect of a tuliped titanium exhaust valve.
3. The effect of a test pipe on exhaust flow.

1. Dan's intake ports where SuperBowl blended, without any porting up in the runner. With a 2.425" stainless steel R&D valve and NO backcut his intakes flowed;

.200=148, .300=224, .400=302, .500=367, .600=420, .700=446, .800=450 cfm.

The head/slider plate was moved over on the flowbench, the intake valve dropped out of it and a proper 30* backcut was ground on the valve. Results AFTER the backcut were;

.200=166, .300=254, .400=319, .500=386, .600=445, .700=456, .800=447 cfm.

As you can see, the results were dramatic. As much as 30 cfm more were obtained. As usual, it helped the low and mid-lift flow numbers most of all, and then at peak lift it only cost us 3 cfm. It was just a classic example of how a backcut helps, however most of the time you won't see that big of a cfm change on the heads that have a lower flowing capability.

2. The exhausts were CNC ported, however we ran a smaller than usual cutter bit in the CNC machine and therefore reduced our port size by .050" in diameter. That gave us a port that was very good, but not maxed out in size which probally helps it some in terms of heat transfer. This engine is going to be turbocharged so, , , we had other considerations. The flow numbers with a 1.880" stainless steel R&D valve with a nailhead shape 15* backangle were;

.200=118, .300=174, .400=230, .500=274, .600=300, .700=317, .800=330 cfm.

Again the head/slider plate was moved over and that valve was removed and one of Lem's titanium 1.880" titanium tulip shaped steep backangle valves was put in. With no other changes the tulip titanium exhaust valve gave us;

.200=129, .300=200, .400=260, .500=292, .600=317, .700=333, .800=345 cfm.

Again, a classic textbook example of what a tulip shaped exhaust valve will give you in a proper racing head. Gains all across the board and as much as 30 cfm @ .400" lift. Don't expect that much gain in a set of Edelbrock Performer heads or something along those lines.

3. For test number three we had the exhaust port flowing 355 cfm at .900" lift and threw a 2.375" diameter primary header pipe on it. It was just a short length of pipe and many companies call these "test pipes". The flow went from 355 cfm up to 378 cfm. A gain of 23 cfm which is about the usual.

Hope you find this data interesting,

Charlie


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply

Doug Rahn
(Login dcrahn)
68.51.184.216 Amazing...
No score for this post November 6 2005, 3:37 PM

How one small change can make such a big difference!

http://www.cardomain.com/id/dcrahn

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Doug Rahn
(Login dcrahn)
68.51.184.216 One thing I'm curious about Charlie...
No score for this post November 6 2005, 3:42 PM

The numbers on the high lift for the exhaust side. Is that because of the different direction on the air flow.

http://www.cardomain.com/id/dcrahn

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.117.9 Doug, I Think So,
No score for this post November 6 2005, 10:47 PM

The steep backangle and big radius on the titanium exhaust valves give it what we call a tulip shape. I think if it wasn't there, the air goes "turbulent" and that reduces flow. With the steep backangle the air has something to give it guidance and direction, it comes off "clean", sorta' like the trailing edge of an airplane wing or the tail end of a submarine. You've forgotten more about airplane wings than I'll ever know, so you understand.

Later,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bret Powell
(Login PullinBret)
208.31.189.242 About the tulip valves...
No score for this post November 6 2005, 11:04 PM

Typically they(tulip) are not better in a OEM factory style head or so is the consensus. Charlie have you done any testing with the tulip valve in a stock head where it might appear to loose flow, but with a flow tube attached I wonder if it might show an improvement?! Yet show loss without the tube.

Do you understand what I'm trying to ask/say?

Bret

PFC Engines 573-793-2177
DTS Dyno and SuperFlow SF600 equipped!

"Pullin For Christ"








Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.117.9 Sometimes I See Things Happen On The Flow Bench
No score for this post November 7 2005, 1:16 AM

that I don't understand. Lot's of times it's like two steps forward and then one step backward. So, , , I worry about it quite a bit, like 24/7.

Bret, in regards to what you said about typically a tulip valve doesn't help a stock head that much, I tend to agree. That's why in my first post up there I said; "In a proper racing head" and I also said not to expect this to happen; "In an Edelbrock head or something similiar".

I have seen a tulip valve help a stock type head and I've also seen it hurt a stock type head. IMO one of the best, if not the best 1.760" exhaust valves is the one sold through Ford FRPP for their SCJ heads. They have quite a bit of backangle and are the best flowing 1.760" exhaust valves I have found, and I've spent a lot of money on R&D valves, both catalog items and custom made to my specs.

Gary, if yellow tulips are a no-no, and red ones are out too, then do we have blue tulips? As in Ford Blue? Just trying to be politically correct here. chuckle.

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(Login GB3351)
216.207.70.45 Charlie, I have yellow ones by the walkway, and a couple
No score for this post November 7 2005, 7:32 AM

of red ones by the steps. Do you know of some Ford hybrid tulips? I would like to have some. LOL

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(Login GB3351)
216.207.70.45 Is that a red or yellow Tulip?
No score for this post November 6 2005, 11:25 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Bret Powell
(Login PullinBret)
208.31.189.245 I would hope it would never be a yellow tulip.
No score for this post November 7 2005, 12:05 AM

Even better if it were never red!

PFC Engines 573-793-2177
DTS Dyno and SuperFlow SF600 equipped!

"Pullin For Christ"








Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Paul Kane
(Login PaulKane)
66.245.6.168 Visual Aid
No score for this post November 7 2005, 2:19 AM

Here's a chart that paints a pretty picture:





Remember, the above chart shows an already CNC ported exhaust (blue line), and the flow increase (red line) is the result of only changing to a different valve and that's it. That's quite a hell of an improvement!

Average flow increase on the exhaust was 19 cfm across the board, and 22 cfm average at mid lift flow numbers (.4", .5" & .6"), again just with the change of a valve and/or angle.

Wow,

Paul
P.s.: Intake chart has the same general appearance; you all get the idea.




Introducing:


High Flow Dynamics


Performance Components for the 429/460 Engine Family




[email protected]




This message has been edited by PaulKane from IP address 66.245.6.168 on Nov 7, 2005 2:22 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
64.251.142.179 Tulip Valve reasoning....
No score for this post November 7 2005, 9:33 AM

Charlie I've been thinking about this tulip valve stuff on the exhaust side and the reasons why it works in a race style head to pick up some flow but doesn't in a street head.

With the race head you've got a bowl that has some depth before the short side takes off and it makes it's turn. There is also area up around the guide boss where flow can occur, in other words it flows straight up before making the turn causing most of the flow to travel parallel to the axis of the valve stem for a short distance, making the back of the valve fuller helps because it fills in an otherwise dead area and it keeps the velocity up. It doesn't matter as much at high lift because the valve is open farther and the velocity is up more in the rest of the port.

In the production style head there just isn't room for the tulip shape, more of the flow is traveling across the back of the valve at an angle to the valve stem axis due to the low short side and turn that happens almost right off of the seat. In this case the tulip valve just blocks the flow at least at mid lift where it's flowing across the back of the valve. Interesting stuff to say the least.



Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.117.9 Dave; I Think You're Right,
No score for this post November 7 2005, 9:39 PM

in fact, exactly right, as to the reason that tulip valves sometimes do not work in a stock exhaust bowl or something close to stock. Now, if you can just explain this to Bret Powell!! heh-he!

Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(Login GB3351)
216.207.70.45 The 22 degree can help in some instances with a D00E-R.
No score for this post November 8 2005, 12:09 AM

This would be with a wide port that's into the head bolt. Also the roof raised slightly. The lower and smaller the port the less you will get from my experience.

Dynamically on overlap some tell me the nail head makes more power though. That's a whole new ballgame there.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
152.163.101.9 Dan; Scott Vincent Has Got Pictures Of Your C-460 Heads
No score for this post November 8 2005, 3:19 PM

on his cell phone/camera. Now then, if he can just figure out to download those babies we'll be good to go.

Later,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - Flow Test Results; Dan Tyner's Heads

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,204 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
More c460 porting notes from Charlie Evans

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index

Ford C-460 Head Flow Tech Data
December 12 2005 at 10:31 PM
No score for this post Charlie Evans (Login c.evans)
from IP address 152.163.101.9

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

Ford C-460 Heads, Interesting Flow Data

Hey guys,

This is a summary of some interesting flow data on the last three sets of C-460 heads that have gone out the door from here. It’s a classic example of how the proper shape and also the necessary volume affect the flow curve of a cylinder head.

Set #1 was a set belonging to a truck puller in North Carolina. They had suffered an engine blow-up and came in here for welding and repair. They had already been fully ported by some other shop, and I don’t know who, but I wasn’t very impressed. When we got done with the welding, new seats and guides, and some new Manley titanium valves we did a competition valve job with Newen carbide cutters. The intakes were the standard 2.450" and the exhaust were 1.900". Although the owner didn’t ask me to, I threw them on the flow bench just to see how good the flowed. I was disappointed to say the least. The intakes (average of all 8 ports) flowed the following;

.200=160.4, .300=238.3, .400=321.6, .500=393, .600=440.1, .700=455.5, .800=431.5, .850=422.6, .900=417.3 cfm

As you can see after .700" lift these ports were all done and the heads stalled and went backward. This is a classic example of an improper shape on the short side radius, and "floor air" colliding with "roof air" in the bowl. So I called the owner and gave him the flow numbers and asked him if he wanted me to rub on them a little bit. I told him I wasn’t going to port the heads, but that I felt like they needed a little work on the short side radius. He said go ahead and I proceeded. I wish I had cc’ed the intake ports, but I forgot, so I do not know the volume of the intake ports on this set of heads. The new flow numbers are;

.200=159, .300=239.1, .400=322.9, .500=394.4, .600=443.3, .700=466.8, .800=449.3, .850=444.3, .900=439.8 cfm.

So the heads responded as I suspected they would and essentially it was a wash up until .600" lift and then we started seeing a little increase. By .700" we gained 11.3 cfm, at .800" we gained 17.8 cfm, at .850" we gained 21.7 cfm and at .900" we gained 22.5 cfm. While the flow numbers are still nothing to brag about, I am happy for the gains at the higher lifts and at least the port doesn’t stall as bad. I felt that additional major work would have been required to up them to the status of a rock & roll set of C-460 heads, and I did the above work for just $380, so I feel he got good value for his dollar. The lesson to be learned is that having the proper short side radius on the intakes, can easily pick up a set of heads 22 cfm.


Set #2 This set was done for a truck puller in Virginia. They were brand new and had our full CNC porting job on them. The intake valves were 2.450" Manley titanium again, and the exhaust were 1.880" Manley titanium. The intake port volume on these heads are right around 378 cc. The average of all eight intake ports flow is;

.200=154.8, .300=235.6, .400=312.5, .500=390, .600=451.3, .700=483.6, .800=496.4, .850=500, .900=502 cfm.

The valve job has a 45* seat, and was done with Newen cutters again. I am pleased with the flow numbers and feel like this is what a rock & roll set of C-460 heads should flow. I’ve been over this before, you can get bigger flow numbers at the high valve lifts with a 52* seat, but then the "seat life" is shortened. The things I want you to remember before we go to the next heads is that they were fully CNC ported with a 2.450" valve and the port volume was 378 cc.


Set #3 was a set of new C-460 heads that we did for a street driven turbocharged engine. In this case we did a reduced volume CNC porting program on the exhaust by using a .050" smaller diameter cutter. We also did the CNC program on the chambers and the pushrod program. The intakes were hand ported in the bowls only with special attention being paid on the short side radius. The intake valves were 2.425" (smaller) Manley titanium and the exhaust were 1.880" Manley XH - 430 Inconel. Our reasoning here was that the intake track was going to be pressurized and in the street/strip application nothing has to be maxed out according to my friend Roger Szabol in Winder, GA who races a twin turbocharged drag car. Also I wanted to keep the exhaust port walls a little thicker due to the extended heat, so that was the reasoning for the reduced volume exhaust port. Additionally, the cam was only going to be around .700" lift, so nothing had to flow really great numbers at the high valve lifts. The average of all eight intake ports was;

.200=160.3, .300=251.5, .400=332.1, .500=397.3, .600=442.5, .700=456.6, .800=453, .850=446.1, .900=439.6 cfm.

Notice that the intakes actually flowed better than Set #2, even with the smaller valve and absolutely no porting in the intake port at all, (just bowl porting) from .200" through .500" lift. The intake port volume was 332 cc (difference of 46 cc) and this is a classic example of the smaller port outflowing the bigger port at the lower valve lifts because the smaller port has increased VELOCITY !. The bigger port is "lazy" at the lower lift points, but then the bigger port comes on and outflows the smaller port from .600" lift on up. The valve job was again a 45* seat and was done with the exact same Newen cutter on both heads. Also notice that from . 500" lift on up, the flow curve on these turbocharged heads and the first set of heads that I repaired is very similar in cfm. The problem is the first set is being used in a pulling truck and will see .850" or so valve lift, whereas these heads won’t need to flow at high valve lifts because of the street cam.

Lem and I have "this thing" about properly sized ports and properly sized valves for different applications. We work at it pretty hard and Lem spends a lot of time in designing custom camshafts for the racers also. The bottom line is that your head selection, your cam selection, the engine’s CID, the flow curve and many more variables should be carefully chosen when you are building your racing engine. They all should be compatible with each other.

I hope you have found this interesting,
Charlie


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Author Reply
Jon Thee
(Login theemudracer)
152.163.101.9 Very interesting......n/m
No score for this post December 12 2005, 10:53 PM

n/m

Jon Thee

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
216.229.65.178 Charlie do you feel...
No score for this post December 12 2005, 11:10 PM

Charlie I was just thinking about how the smaller port worked better at lower lifts, do you suppose this is because the velocity does not have to increase quite as much as the air travels from the port to the valve and seat area(it's already going faster) therefore it works better at low to medium lifts than the large port? Could this also be one of the reasons why it tends to fall off more at high lift with the valve mostly out of the picture, the velocity is now very high in the port and really drops when it reaches the cylinder? Making the port larger esspecially down in the bowl area might make the port work better because it makes the transisition from the port to the cylinder more gradual? Any ideas?

Which style of port is more effected by the intalation of the intake manifold, the larger one or the smaller one?? Is the larger port more forgiving if the intake tends to push the mass of the flow off center?




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Lem Evans
(Login l-evans7)
69.166.129.47 volume at the high lifts
No score for this post December 12 2005, 11:21 PM

is such that the air speed wants to see more area/shape over the short side and a bigger bowl . Otherwise the air becomes turbulant and "stalls" the port IMO .

This message has been edited by l-evans7 from IP address 69.166.129.47 on Dec 12, 2005 11:22 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(Login GB3351)
67.130.59.43 Charlie have you ever had the opportunity to test your small 332 CC
No score for this post December 12 2005, 11:51 PM

head vs. the larger 378 cc intake runner on the dyno and in a drag car?

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
205.188.117.68 No Gary, I Haven't.
No score for this post December 13 2005, 1:38 AM

I haven't had the right "situation" present itself so I could. We're going to dyno two engines at the end of this month, but neither one of them are "C" headed engines.

I do remember you telling me that you could make a C-460 head "work" on a small 470 CID engine. Reading between the lines, I would think that would have been a small volume runner and the engine would be "working" at some very high rpm's. The small CID truck pullers that run C-460 heads work their engines between 8000 to 9000 rpm.

Later,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(Login GB3351)
67.130.59.43 Charlie I've only had one 477 and it made 902 @ 7100.
No score for this post December 13 2005, 8:43 AM

That was 8 years ago and a lot has changed. I would like to do another one but I don't have an opportunity either. It had 2.35 intakes and 1.80 exhausts on a 4.440 bore. The intake port was just a clean up with stock sized runner area. The same on the exhaust.

This message has been edited by GB3351 from IP address 67.130.59.43 on Dec 13, 2005 8:54 AM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Steve S.
(Login 67xr7cat)
146.145.96.50 Do you remember how much lift the cam had? N/M
No score for this post December 13 2005, 1:21 PM



Thanks Steve S.

This message has been edited by 67xr7cat from IP address 146.145.96.50 on Dec 13, 2005 1:22 PM




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Gary Blair
(Login GB3351)
67.130.59.43 Steve it was a Comp. and probably .837 gross on the intake. n/m
No score for this post December 13 2005, 1:45 PM

n/m

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

DaveMcLain
(Login DaveMcLain)
64.251.141.104 C Headed Puller
No score for this post December 13 2005, 9:28 AM

I think the C headed truck pullers around here are running a 605 and a 632 to about 8000rpm with the C heads! Now that's a bunch, I wonder how much camshaft does that take?


Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message


Scott J. AKA the Mad porter !!!
(Login ScottJ429)
131.191.33.129 Thanxxx for sharing charlie.... Good stuff as always... n/m
No score for this post December 13 2005, 12:32 AM

n/m





Regards,
Scott Johnston / RHP

Complete list of product and services:
http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com






http://www.prepaidlegal.com/info/scottjohnston




Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

mikep
(Login ferdman)
198.176.189.201 Re: Ford C-460 Head Flow Tech Data
No score for this post December 13 2005, 4:01 PM

Charlie, I was wondering if I could contact you about sending my C heads in so you can look at them and see if any improvement can be made. Also I can send my hogans intake in also for your comparison testing of the intake you talked about in the earlier post.

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Charlie Evans
(Login c.evans)
64.12.117.9 That Will Be Fine !
No score for this post December 13 2005, 8:44 PM

We can take a look at them, flow test them and see if there are any cost effective upgrades we can do. I'll fax you the flow numbers then call you and we'll decide together what you want to do. The Hogans manifold sounds like a nice idea also.

The address is;

Evans Racing Engines
1231 Upper Trace
Owensboro, KY 42303

(270)685-4654

Thanks,
Charlie

Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message

Current Topic - Ford C-460 Head Flow Tech Data

<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Index
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top