Joined
·
1,203 Posts
Has anyone opened a dove-c to C/J sizes?
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Author Reply
RJP
(no login)
205.188.200.164 Valves or ports?
No score for this post January 23 2001, 2:11 AM
I have done several sets of heads: opened up to 2.19"/1.75" or 2.25"/1.75" No problem with the valves but the ports won't go to that size, castings are different.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
George Huff
(no login)
205.188.199.172 Valves or ports?
No score for this post January 23 2001, 11:01 PM
I know the valve sizes will go but, i wondered about the intake ports. I guess i need C/J alum's for my "511" and can't get away from it. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, George
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
RJP
(no login)
64.12.105.172 A few options
No score for this post January 24 2001, 2:04 AM
You can run the aluminum CJs but they will still need some port work esp. in the exhaust. I ran a set on a 466" tunnel-ramed with 2 850 d.p. Replaced a set of iron CJs [D0OE-R] Big improvement over the iron heads. Or you can try a set of Blue Thunder heads [I have no experence with those] Also the Edelbrock has a replacement head for street use but I haven't seen any flow data on them yet and don't know how they will respond to port work although the exhaust are very interesting, a modified "D" port and may prove to be a strong head to work with. If the FE head is any indication of the potential it just might turn out to have a more favorable intake to exhaust flow ratio. Any other head will require another type of manifold such as the A-460 thru E-460 heads from SVO.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
George Huff
(no login)
64.12.105.26 DOVE'S
No score for this post January 24 2001, 8:20 AM
Thanks for your info! George
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
BobMacD
(no login)
149.99.201.36 Head flow
No score for this post January 25 2001, 1:03 AM
To follow up on RJP's thoughts on aluminum heads. The following flow information was obtained directly from the manufactures so I can not guarantee the accuracy but it probably does reflect the relative relationship between the heads.
Valve lift TFS/FRPP alum CJ Edelbrock
Int Exh Int Exh
2.19 1.76 2.19 1.76
0.10 63 42 76 67
0.20 121 92 140 118
0.30 181 133 207 153
0.40 240 165 260 180
0.50 274 176 300 200
0.60 292 189 319 207
Both flows @28 inches of H20
It would seem the Edelbrocks have quite good low lift flow values as well as outflowing the other head at high lift. My understanding is the Bluethunder heads are another 20cfm better than the Edelbrocks but cost $500 more. Food for thought. The chart does not come out as planned but the info is there.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Mike R.
(no login)
32.97.239.18 Bob, is the second set of numbers the Edlebrocks? N/M
No score for this post January 25 2001, 12:21 PM
n/m
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
BobMacD
(no login)
149.99.204.189 Head Flow
No score for this post January 26 2001, 6:39 AM
The second set of numbers are the Edelbrock's
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Mike R.
(no login)
32.97.239.30 head flow
No score for this post January 26 2001, 11:52 AM
Wow, those are impressive numbers for a non ported 429/460 head. It would be nice to see some independently done flow tests, but I would hope that Edlebrock is being pretty straightforward about the results. It's hard to imagine the smaller ports flowing that well, but the exhaust port design really seems to make sense. It would appear the Edlebrock people have done their homework on these heads. It would be interesting to see what they flow when they're ported. I would guess they may not benefit from porting as much as the cj aluminum heads do.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Chris C
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
208.6.240.153 Ebrock # comment
No score for this post January 26 2001, 4:02 PM
I don't mean to knock Ebrock, but in most instances I've seen them overstate their numbers. All manufacturers seem to do it, TFS, World, Ebrock, Ford Motorsport, etc. it's the nature of advertising. I had my 390 ebrocks flowed and they fell well short (supposed to pull 270cfm, more like 255) and their smallblock stuff regularly falls short of the listed #'s when the mags test them. I know there are variations in the flowbenches but Ebrock always seems high. Important to remember, TFS is probably estimating flow kind of high to so take it all relatively, Ebrocks still appear to be very good.
This message has been edited by chilly460 from IP address 208.6.240.153 on Jan 26, 2001 4:03 PM
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
BobMacD
(no login)
149.99.197.190 Head Flow follow up
No score for this post January 26 2001, 10:25 PM
I agree that manufactures tend to provide optimistic values and why it is so frustrating when trying to obtain real information. That's what makes forums like this so valuable where racers can share real world results
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
D
(no login)
24.15.248.41 TFS Update
No score for this post January 31 2001, 11:08 PM
As I understand, TFS is currently retooling their 429/460 heads and are slated for production mid-2001.
I haven't heard anymore, but I can't imagine they will flow any less. Nothing is impossible, but why else would they cease production in order for a retooling ?
From what little I do know about these BBFs, it seems most vendors, as well as the original iron heads, are all constrained on the exhaust side. No matter what type of head is used...the exhaust side needs porting.
Now I may have taken liberty with that last statement and I should say that for any head in which a stock/aftermarket header can be used in a Mustang. I apologize for my selfishness, but you would think for the money these guys get that the exhaust side would flow more proportionate to the intake.
Thanks for the soapbox.
Feel free to spank me if I'm in error...like I said, this is a new game to me.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Walt Barnes
(no login)
12.36.108.38 Can this really be right???
No score for this post January 27 2001, 12:21 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these numbers show the Edelbrock head flow better than FRP aluminum CJ heads, right? That would make them superior to stock CJ iron (D0OE) or ported-big valved (D0VE) heads. And we know their port cross-section is smaller than CJ heads so the better velocity would make these a very hot street ticket for 429 and 460 sized engines.
Darn, just when I'd decided on ported D0VE heads with CJ valves this comes along. Now I'd better wait until I can find out if this is true, or just to-good-to-be, LOL.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Author Reply
RJP
(no login)
205.188.200.164 Valves or ports?
No score for this post January 23 2001, 2:11 AM
I have done several sets of heads: opened up to 2.19"/1.75" or 2.25"/1.75" No problem with the valves but the ports won't go to that size, castings are different.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
George Huff
(no login)
205.188.199.172 Valves or ports?
No score for this post January 23 2001, 11:01 PM
I know the valve sizes will go but, i wondered about the intake ports. I guess i need C/J alum's for my "511" and can't get away from it. Let me know your thoughts. Thanks, George
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
RJP
(no login)
64.12.105.172 A few options
No score for this post January 24 2001, 2:04 AM
You can run the aluminum CJs but they will still need some port work esp. in the exhaust. I ran a set on a 466" tunnel-ramed with 2 850 d.p. Replaced a set of iron CJs [D0OE-R] Big improvement over the iron heads. Or you can try a set of Blue Thunder heads [I have no experence with those] Also the Edelbrock has a replacement head for street use but I haven't seen any flow data on them yet and don't know how they will respond to port work although the exhaust are very interesting, a modified "D" port and may prove to be a strong head to work with. If the FE head is any indication of the potential it just might turn out to have a more favorable intake to exhaust flow ratio. Any other head will require another type of manifold such as the A-460 thru E-460 heads from SVO.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
George Huff
(no login)
64.12.105.26 DOVE'S
No score for this post January 24 2001, 8:20 AM
Thanks for your info! George
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
BobMacD
(no login)
149.99.201.36 Head flow
No score for this post January 25 2001, 1:03 AM
To follow up on RJP's thoughts on aluminum heads. The following flow information was obtained directly from the manufactures so I can not guarantee the accuracy but it probably does reflect the relative relationship between the heads.
Valve lift TFS/FRPP alum CJ Edelbrock
Int Exh Int Exh
2.19 1.76 2.19 1.76
0.10 63 42 76 67
0.20 121 92 140 118
0.30 181 133 207 153
0.40 240 165 260 180
0.50 274 176 300 200
0.60 292 189 319 207
Both flows @28 inches of H20
It would seem the Edelbrocks have quite good low lift flow values as well as outflowing the other head at high lift. My understanding is the Bluethunder heads are another 20cfm better than the Edelbrocks but cost $500 more. Food for thought. The chart does not come out as planned but the info is there.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Mike R.
(no login)
32.97.239.18 Bob, is the second set of numbers the Edlebrocks? N/M
No score for this post January 25 2001, 12:21 PM
n/m
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
BobMacD
(no login)
149.99.204.189 Head Flow
No score for this post January 26 2001, 6:39 AM
The second set of numbers are the Edelbrock's
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Mike R.
(no login)
32.97.239.30 head flow
No score for this post January 26 2001, 11:52 AM
Wow, those are impressive numbers for a non ported 429/460 head. It would be nice to see some independently done flow tests, but I would hope that Edlebrock is being pretty straightforward about the results. It's hard to imagine the smaller ports flowing that well, but the exhaust port design really seems to make sense. It would appear the Edlebrock people have done their homework on these heads. It would be interesting to see what they flow when they're ported. I would guess they may not benefit from porting as much as the cj aluminum heads do.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Chris C
(Premier Login chilly460)
Forum Owner
208.6.240.153 Ebrock # comment
No score for this post January 26 2001, 4:02 PM
I don't mean to knock Ebrock, but in most instances I've seen them overstate their numbers. All manufacturers seem to do it, TFS, World, Ebrock, Ford Motorsport, etc. it's the nature of advertising. I had my 390 ebrocks flowed and they fell well short (supposed to pull 270cfm, more like 255) and their smallblock stuff regularly falls short of the listed #'s when the mags test them. I know there are variations in the flowbenches but Ebrock always seems high. Important to remember, TFS is probably estimating flow kind of high to so take it all relatively, Ebrocks still appear to be very good.
This message has been edited by chilly460 from IP address 208.6.240.153 on Jan 26, 2001 4:03 PM
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
BobMacD
(no login)
149.99.197.190 Head Flow follow up
No score for this post January 26 2001, 10:25 PM
I agree that manufactures tend to provide optimistic values and why it is so frustrating when trying to obtain real information. That's what makes forums like this so valuable where racers can share real world results
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
D
(no login)
24.15.248.41 TFS Update
No score for this post January 31 2001, 11:08 PM
As I understand, TFS is currently retooling their 429/460 heads and are slated for production mid-2001.
I haven't heard anymore, but I can't imagine they will flow any less. Nothing is impossible, but why else would they cease production in order for a retooling ?
From what little I do know about these BBFs, it seems most vendors, as well as the original iron heads, are all constrained on the exhaust side. No matter what type of head is used...the exhaust side needs porting.
Now I may have taken liberty with that last statement and I should say that for any head in which a stock/aftermarket header can be used in a Mustang. I apologize for my selfishness, but you would think for the money these guys get that the exhaust side would flow more proportionate to the intake.
Thanks for the soapbox.
Feel free to spank me if I'm in error...like I said, this is a new game to me.
Score 1 2 3 4 5 (5=Excellent) Edit Message Delete Message Lock Thread Respond to this message
Walt Barnes
(no login)
12.36.108.38 Can this really be right???
No score for this post January 27 2001, 12:21 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but these numbers show the Edelbrock head flow better than FRP aluminum CJ heads, right? That would make them superior to stock CJ iron (D0OE) or ported-big valved (D0VE) heads. And we know their port cross-section is smaller than CJ heads so the better velocity would make these a very hot street ticket for 429 and 460 sized engines.
Darn, just when I'd decided on ported D0VE heads with CJ valves this comes along. Now I'd better wait until I can find out if this is true, or just to-good-to-be, LOL.
