460 Ford Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
With the new trick flow power port heads coming out.I have always wondered why when it comes to BBF heads there are not more heads that have a bigger port?

I mean I look at the chevy heads and there ports get bigger and there flow numbers get bigger also.Now I know that flow is not everything but it does have a purpose and does help to make horsepower.I look at the BBF heads and with the oval intake ports can make more cfm with less cc's.
Looking at the BBC offerings they have heads with a 357cc intake port that flow in the 425cfm range,and for what I have read here the P-51's can flow that in the right hands with a smaller port.

Is there a reason why there are not any heads with a larger port?
Is the head not tall enough?
Is that also a reason why Ford designed the A460 heads?


This also could be for the SBF but that is for another forum.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,311 Posts
I would say those Kaase P-51s are about as good as it gets for out of the box 460 heads. The dyno numbers are more important than flowbench cfm numbers. (Myself as well as others have heard Mr. Kasse mention that.)

The one thing that we BBF fans have over the BB Chevys guys is the ability to get 557 inches out a production block, unlike the Chevy guys. :D
I think their production block maxes out somewhere around 496 in.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,557 Posts
This is not a numbers game, so forget portsize and flow numbers. Instead, look at the big picture: the overall design of the BBF-applicable cylinder heads are extremely well suited for the combos that are created with this engine platform. Bigger ports would make for a more poorly suited head for these combos. Generally speaking the OEM iron, such as well prepped D0VE heads, are probaly best suited for about 500 cubes/6000 rpm for example. CJ's/SCJ's/P51s well suited for something perhaps 10% larger depending on applicaton. (My points are generalizations for the purposes of illustration and of course this varies depending on what you are specifically building.) Bigger engine? Look to the bigger heads such as the A460's that you mentioined....by the way, Ford did not invent the A460 head, Mike and Rick Smith did.

Paul
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
750 Posts
Port volumn is kind of misleading. Unless the heads have the same valve location it doesn't mean alot. Move the valve towards the intakemore, like TFS TW heads, and the volumn decreases even though the cross section is the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I would say those Kaase P-51s are about as good as it gets for out of the box 460 heads. The dyno numbers are more important than flowbench cfm numbers. (Myself as well as others have heard Mr. Kasse mention that.)

The one thing that we BBF fans have over the BB Chevys guys is the ability to get 557 inches out a production block, unlike the Chevy guys. :D
I think their production block maxes out somewhere around 496 in.
I understand that the P-51's are the best "conventional port" BBF wedge head out there right now and sure dyno numbers are the most important but they can't be the be-all-to-end-all "conventional port" BBF wedge heads,right?
And,just because the factory BBF block can be built to such large cubic inches that the factory BBC doesn't,should not stop devolopment on head improvements.

This is not a numbers game, so forget portsize and flow numbers. Instead, look at the big picture: the overall design of the BBF-applicable cylinder heads are extremely well suited for the combos that are created with this engine platform. Bigger ports would make for a more poorly suited head for these combos. Generally speaking the OEM iron, such as well prepped D0VE heads, are probaly best suited for about 500 cubes/6000 rpm for example. CJ's/SCJ's/P51s well suited for something perhaps 10% larger depending on applicaton. (My points are generalizations for the purposes of illustration and of course this varies depending on what you are specifically building.) Bigger engine? Look to the bigger heads such as the A460's that you mentioined....by the way, Ford did not invent the A460 head, Mike and Rick Smith did.

Paul
Why would bigger ports make for a more poorly suited head for these combos? Wouldn't it help with larger combonations with big strokers with a large bore like a 4.600 bore? I understand that this where the A460's would help more but why not the "conventional oval port" design?

Also,why did Mike and Rick Smith design the A460 head for ford? Was it because there were limitations with not only the valve positions but also the oval port design?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,179 Posts
For the most part the heads with the conventional intake and exhaust are making about as much power as the low entrance intake will support. The exhaust really is not that much of a limiting factor The next real step is to raise the intake port entry "and" raise, resize the exhaust port. If the exhaust were the biggest problem it would have been addressed with more concern than has been done.

Bret
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The symmetrical port lay-out is another thing I think helps with better flow for the BBF as apposed to the "twin port " lay-out like the BBC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,854 Posts
K B R
The port volume in actual cc's has very little to do with comparing one design head to another.
Crossectional port AREA is the only viable comparison.
The LONGER port will automaticly have a volume of more CC's if the area within the ports is really the same.

CC volume should only be used to compare cylinder head ports within the same "family".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
Thanks Randy.It was something that I have often thaught of.Not really comparing the two engine families but have often wondered if the heads for the BBF would get larger ports.
Up till now with Trick Flows new power port 325cc heads they have always seemed to stay within the standard cj and non-cj port sizes.

I also hope that now that Trick Flow has moved up the power potential of their heads that Eddlbrock would do the same,like develop a victor head for the BBF.


ERIK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
46 Posts
Sure seems to me the BBC is getting more and more and bigger and bigger cylinder heads while the Ford gets what... oh wow.. cnc'd trickflow stuff. The BBF is darn near last on any list to get new head development.
I was looking through what was a new national dragster a guy left at the shop. All I saw were Chevy cars and their owners holding trophies. If the Ford guys had half the development the Chevy guys have, there would be at least 1 in 3, but nope. Almost an entire run of Chevy powered winners.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
86 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
Winning trophies and having their pictures taken at the event is not what I was getting at.There are BBF guys out there that win races and trophies but hardly ever get the magazine credit for it.

What I am wondering is in the last 9 years or so there has been alot of development in the heads for the BBF and have wondered if the development could lead to "bigger conventional" port heads,also with A460 heads?

The heads now have been proven that they can hold their own even with the BBC stuff with less support from the aftermarket.



Also,I don't think the BBF is on the last list of head development.I think that title goes to the BB0 (Olds).In fact it seems like they are last on the list with alot of stuff.
 

·
Senior Member
Joined
·
8,522 Posts
"Also,why did Mike and Rick Smith design the A460 head for ford?"
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
The Smiths did not design the head for Ford . They sold the design to Ford after the fact . The head was sold under the TFS brand [later sold to the Summit people] . The heads became know as A460s when Ford assigned the M-6049-A460 part # to them .
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top