CYLINDER HEAD INFO gathered by DJOHAGIN

General Information

Port Measurements

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

Courtesy of ScottJ.

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"

Useful links:

B.F. Evans Ford Dealer (Lem Evans):

http://bfevansraceparts.com/default.aspx

DSC Motorsports:

http://www.dscmotorsport.com/About/index.asp

Edelbrock:

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/index.html

Eliminator Products:

http://eliminatorproducts.com/

Ford Racing Parts:

http://www.fordracingparts.com/home/home.asp

High Flow Dynamics (Paul Kane):

http://www.highflowdynamics.com/

Jon Kaase Racing Engines:

http://www.jonkaaseracingengines.com

MPG Head Service:

http://www.mpgheads.com

Price Motorsport Engineering:

http://www.pricemotorsport.com/

"Pro-Filer" Performance Products

http://www.profilerperformance.com/bbford-205.html

Rein"Car"nation High Performance (Scott J):

http://www.reincarnation-automotive.com/

TFS:

http://www.trickflow.com/

Machined Surface Finish

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 (RMS values are outdated measures.)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 analyzing, 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

Valve Info

Testing aside, has anyone run the S-I valves and aren't S-I's from Japan and actually a parent manufacturer/supplier of other major brand valves?

S.I. and REV are the same valves. Although they are different companies, they share inventory and work it out somehow. They will make valves to your specs if you provide a print. They are made in Argentina.

The S-I valves I ordered actually came from REV. I think a REV valve is finished a little nicer than an S-I valve.

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.

SI valve 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.

Titanium Valves

Is there any problem with backcutting a titanium intake valve?

Backcutting titanium valves is dependent on the manufacter. Ferrea valves are usually a non-issue where as some Manley valves have such a thin head thickness, that you can hardly get a backcut. You have to check to see if there is enough margin thickness, like around .070" to .075" and then enough seat width, in order to have something to backcut.

How about titanium valves on a street engine?

Titanium does NOT provide a good "wear" surface. That is the reason the stems are moly coated and it is also the reason the stem tip requires protection. You need either hardened stellite tips installed or lash caps, for race engine use.

Then if you are going to use the titanium valves on the street, in addition to the above, you will need a very expensive DLC coating, or TiAlN coating on the seat contact surface.

Head Bolt Data

This is the 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.

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"

Cylinder Head Pecking Order

It helps if you divide all the heads into four major families. The four families are (from top to bottom the order is);

I. Hemi Heads

1. B-441
2&3. (tie) A-441, and the billet Indy Cylinder Head Hemi
4. Original Boss 429 production heads.

II. Pro Stock Wedge Heads

The pecking order is debatable, and certainly the size of the engine that you intend to use them on comes into play here.

1. Blue Thunder Thor for big inch wedges 650+ CID
2. E-460 FRPP for NHRA Pro Stock
3. D-460 FRPP
4&5. (tie) C-460 Replacement head or FRPP C-460 are on the same level.
6. TFS B-460 Bastard Pro Stock heads

III. A-460 Heads

The EX 514 is available in cast iron also.

1,2,&3. (all tied) New style TFS A-460, EX514 and the Eliminator 900 series.
4. The older TFS and Ford Motorsports A-460 castings.

IV. The standard Ford Production Heads

In this family we have several heads including both cast iron OEM production and aftermarket alum. heads.

1. Kaase P-51 head.
2. FRPP SCJ head.
2. The Blue Thunder "B" head which is the one with the raised exhaust port and the Chevy style flange pattern.
3&4. (tied) Blue Thunder with the raised exhaust port and Ford bolt pattern, and the TFS Street Heat head, again with a raised exhaust port and Ford bolt pattern.
5,6,7,8,9&10. Big log jam here, but we have the old Ford A-429 heads, the Blue Thunder CJ head with standard exhaust port location, the old style TFS CJ head, and the three different versions of the Edelbrock RPM/CJ heads.
11,12&? We have the cast iron production DOOE-R CJ head and the DOVE heads along with others such as the Police Interceptor head and etc. I am not saying these cast iron heads are any worse than the big batch of alum. heads I listed right above but they're just heavier!

Probably more importantly than the pecking order of the heads is who you choose to do the valve job, the porting and flow testing of the heads. In other words, the quality of the work. I have a seen good quality Blue Thunder "B" heads outflow poor quality EX 514 heads for example and they are in two different families. What I'm saying is, a head that is lower in the pecking order, can surpass a head that is above it due to being properly prepped.

Generally speaking, the alum. heads are better than the cast iron heads, because all the alum. heads have a better exhaust port. They flow more because they are designed better. IMO any cast iron OEM production head needs serious help in regards to the exhaust flow. They are "choked" from the factory. There are several guys who are good cast iron Ford head porters. Three that seem to be working miracles that are on this 385 Forum are Bret Powell, Scott Johnston and Scott Vincent.

The intake ports of our Ford OEM cast iron heads and aftermarket cast alum. Ford heads are much closer in parity than the exhaust ports. Nobody needs to make any apologies for our OEM cast iron intake ports. They're good! Especially the DOOE-R CJ head.

As for the letters A, B, C, and etc. This is just Ford's nomenclature for distinguishing early or original versions of parts from later versions of parts. "A" is generally the first version of a head and then "B" is the second, "C" is the third and so on. Most always the later versions have some design change/upgrade in order to imporve the part.

For example the first Pro Stock wedge head back in the early/mid 80's was the A-460, then we had B-460 heads, and by the mid 90's we had the C-460 head, then D-460 and the current NHRA legal Pro Stock head for Ford is the E-460 head. That's where we are at now.

BBF Head Heirarchy from best to worst

1. C&C C-441 Hemi
2. C&C B-441 Hemi
3. HFD Pentroof Hemi
4. C&C A-441 Hemi
5. Ford Motorsport A-441 Hemi (No longer in production)
6. Indy Cylinder Hemi
7. Ford E-460 Pro Stock
8. Blue Thunder Thor Gen II
9. Blue Thunder Thor Gen I
10. Profiler C-Replacement
11. Ford C-460
12. Ford D-460 Pro Stock (No longer in production)
13. Ford Motorsport bastard Pro Stock (There are various stages) (No longer in production)
14. IDT Eliminator A-460
15. EX514
16. New TFS A-460 18-bolt
18. New TFS A-460
19. EX514 Cast Iron A-460
20. IDT Eliminator Cast Iron A-460
21. Older TFS A-460 (No longer in production)
22. Ford Motorsport A-460 (No longer in production)
23. Ford Motorsport A-460 (Ford exhaust port) (No longer in production)
24. Kaase Hemi
25. Boss 429 Replacement
26. Ford Stock Hemi (No longer in production)
27. TFS B-460 (small port) (No longer in production)
28. Ford Motorsport B-460 (small port) (No longer in production)
29. Kaase P-51
30. Ford Racing Parts SCJ
31. Blue Thunder CJ with Chevy exhaust flange
32. Blue Thunder CJ with raised Ford exhaust port
33. TFS Street
34. Blue Thunder CJ with stock Ford exhaust port location
35. TFS CJ (No longer in production)
36. Ford A-429 CJ (No longer in production)
37. Edelbrock CJ
38. Ford Cast Iron DOOE-R CJ (No longer in production)
39. Edelbrock 75cc Standard Port
40. Ford Cast iron PI (No longer in production)
41. ProComp Aluminum 74cc
42. Ford Cast Iron C8VE (No longer in production)
43. Ford Cast Iron C9VE (No longer in production)
44. Ford Cast Iron DOVE (No longer in production)
45. Edelbrock 95cc Standard Port
46. ProComp Aluminum 95cc
47. Ford Cast iron D3VE (No longer in production)
48. Ford Cast Iron E6TE (No longer in production)
49. Ford Cast Iron F8TE (No longer in production)
50. Ford Cast Iron "Fuelie" F3TE (No longer in production)
51. Ford Cast Iron "Fuelie" E7TE (No longer in production)
52. Ford Cast iron D2VE (No longer in production)
53. Ford Cast Iron D8TE (or E9TE, to be confirmed) (No longer in production)

Stock Small Port Cast Iron Heads

Scott J. AKA "The Mad Porter" BBF iron cylinder head casting numbers and data link:

http://www.reincarnation-automotive....s-1-index.html

Head Castings

The early iron castings, C8VE,C9VE, and DOVE heads are basically all the same. Some castings have thermact-air bosses and drilled passages, and some do not. The size of the thermact-air bosses also varies. With-in the three casting, there is also engineering revisions, i.e. DOVE-A, DOVE-B, DOVE-C. Chamber size is about 77 cc, and can vary +/- from that. The stock size valves in these heads are 2.08 for the intake and 1.65 for the exhaust. These heads can have 2.25 intake and 1.76 exhaust valves installed. The exhaust port shape is restricted quite a bit, and porting helps. After proper porting, all three casting flow the same. It should be noted, not only for these factory cast iron heads, that not only should the exhaust be ported, but the intake as well.

The next batch of casting is; D3VE, E6TE, and F8TE. These heads are basically all the same. The E6s and F8s were cast as replacements for the D3s. Most of these casting have thermact-air bosses and drilled passages, but a few D3 castings do not drilled thermact-air passages. Chamber size varies from 92 cc to 100cc, so it is important to cc the heads. The chamber is .100 deeper than the early heads, and the valves are shorted that much as well. When replacing these heads with the early heads, the valves will be .100 closer to the piston, so take that into consideration. The stock size valves in these heads are 2.08 for the intake and 1.65 for the exhaust. These heads can have 2.25 intake and 1.76 exhaust valves installed. The exhaust port shape is restricted the most out of all the factory cast iron heads. After proper porting, all three casting flow the same. The exhaust cannot be make to flow like the early castings due to the short-turn on the exhaust being .100 shorter.

Maximum Valve Lifts With Stock Heads

Courtesy of Randy Malik

Unmachined D3's with production length valves and stock retainers will allow about .560"valve lift MAXIMUM; maybe some heads might allow very slightly more.

Maximum Power from Ported Heads

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

With well worked max effort dove heads you can expect a maximum of about 700 to 725 HP given the intake port flow capabilities of the dove intake port.

On a 557 cubic inch motor, you can get 700 HP at 6K rpm with a Comp Cams XR292R cam and 10.6 to 1 compression ratio.

A 472 can make 718 hp at 7200 rpm with about 20 degrees more duration, higher valve lift and two points more c/r.

Stock Small Port Cast Iron Head Flow Numbers

E7TE "Fuelie" Head

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

Unported

.100=58/42
.200=117/88
.300=174/117
.400=196/131
.500=224/137
.600=239/141
.700=247/142

Ported

.100=74/54
.200=147/103
.300=211/137
.400=263/169
.500=289/191
.600=303/206
.700=312/219

F3TE "Fuelie" Head

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

2.19 x 1.76

Ported

.100=87/82
.200=163/116
.300=227/150
.400=275/175
.500=305/199
.600=316/215
.700=326/222

D3VE Head

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

Unported

.100=62/47
.200=119/87
.300=189/119
.400=236/125
.500=263/129
.600=270/129

Ported Stage 2 standard flange on intake and Stage 2 on exhaust

.100=95/60
.200=163/107
.300=223/140
.400=268/168
.500=301/195
.600=325/202
.700=342/202
.800=355/202

DOVE Head (C8 and C9 heads will be similar)

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

Unported

.100=62/47
.200=119/87
.300=189/119
.400=236/134
.500=263/135
.600=279/135
.700=289/135

Ported Stage 2 standard flange on intake and Stage 2 on exhaust

.100=97/60
.200=174/107
.300=251/140
.400=292/168
.500=307/195
.600=322/212
.700=337/220
.800=349/220

Maximum effort porting with blazing on intake and exhaust with Victor match
2.2 Intake and 1.8 Exhaust Valves

.100=78/70
.200=160/115
.300=223/157
.400=271/187
.500=300/200
.600=328/215
.700=339/222
.800=354/227

D2OE Police Interceptor Head

Ported D20E PI heads. Intake port and bowl opened up to 310cc. 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 back cut on intake valve. Hardened exhaust seats are a little big ID - about 1.588" - so might have hurt flow. Intake valve is unshrouded.

No pipe.

.100=84/65
.200=176/100
.300=246/142
.400=298/174
.500=314/182
.600=329/194
.700=339/199
.800=348/199

Aluminum Small Port Heads

Edelbrock Head

Differences Between Victor Jr, Performer RPM CJ, And Performer RPM Heads.

Victor Jr.

CJ cnc'ed CJ port match
Better springs and valves for a roller cam
75 cc chamber

Performer RPM CJ

CJ cnc'ed port match
Springs for hydraulic cam
75 cc chamber

Performer RPM

Standard size ports
Springs for hydraulic cam
Chamber sizes in 75cc and 95cc

All the above heads have the same exhaust port.

Discussion on Edelbrock heads on stroker motors Link:

http://www.network54.com/Forum/threa...eid=1098834290

Trick Flow Street Head

Basic specs:

290cc intake runners and and 130cc exhaust ports raised .270 in. from the stock location
74cc combustion chambers
2.200 in. intake/1.760 in. exhaust size valves

Flow Number Tests

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

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 exhausts 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.

Fully ported we have.
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.

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 aluminum on the outside. I'd recommend changing that for race engines, but it will be okay for street/strip engines.

Port Size

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

The TFS intake ports are all offset looking to match the Victor intake port centers. When this is done, are the ports the same size or is the TFS port slightly larger that the Victor intake port, and then, do you open up the Victor side some? I'm planning to use TFS streets on a large cube motor. Are the TFS different that the old A429 heads? A bunch of people use mildly ported A429 heads on 545 and 557 motors with good results.

The TFS streets have a Dove sized intake port on Dove port centers. The victor intake has dove sized port exits on the cj centers. When matching the tfs streets to the victor intake the ports are raised with 1 and 3 going left and 2 and 4 more straight up.

TFS streets will support 800 HP and after I port them the passange is pretty good sized. I have sold many pair to clients with 521 and 545 inch stroker combos. One client with a propane powered 545 with a blow through super charger is making 1050 HP.

Dont let the small port cross section fool you. The TFS streets are a very very good cylinder head. The TFS streets minimum intake port cross sections are quite similar to the first gen aluminum cj's which are not nearly as large as the iron cjs are.

Every pair of TFS streets I have done beat my ported first gen aluminum cj's by 15 cfm at .600", 7 to 10 cfm at .700" and 5 to 10 CFM at .800" The streets have a highly active, very efficient and well engineered intake port.

Aluminum Small Port Head Flow Numbers

Edelbrock Standard Port Head

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

2.19 x 1.75

Unported, out of the box with no test pipe on the exhaust:

.100=66/58
.200=135/106
.300=202/144
.400=253/171
.500=296/187
.600=316/200
.700=327/205
.750=333/207

Fully ported with Victor port match

.100=67/57
.200=138/114
.300=204/158
.400=260/189
.500=309/216
.600=334/230
.700=347/241
.750=354/243

TFS Street Head

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

2.20 x 1.75

Unported, out of the box with no test pipe on exhaust

.100=67/51
.200=144/100
.300=211/138
.400=275/169
.500=325/194
.600=351/211
.700=351/223
.750=352/227

Fully ported with Victor port match

.100=70/58
.200=153/110
.300=231/154
.400=295/187
.500=335/219
.600=358/240
.700=367/251
.750=370/256

Cast Iron CJ Heads

The D0OE-R heads. The intake port is larger than passenger car castings. Chamber size is listed at 72cc and can vary +/- from that. The stock size valves in these heads are 2.24 for the intake and 1.72 for the exhaust. The exhaust port is also larger than the passenger heads, but the shape is similar, hence it is also restricted quite a bit, and porting helps.

Cast Iron CJ Port Head Flow Numbers

Cast Iron D0OE-R

Courtesy of PullinBret

2.250 x 1.75

Unported

.100 - 72/55 76%
.200 - 137/109 79%
.300 - 200/134 67%
.400 - 266/149 56%
.500 - 289/157 54%
.600 - 317/161 50%
.700 - 337/163 48%
.800 - 350/???

Courtesy of Mike R.

2.245 x 1.725

Ported

.100 - 81/57 70%
.200 - 156/112 71%
.300 - 227/151 66%
.400 - 277/175 63%
.500 - 310/192 62%
.600 - 343/203 59%
.650 - 352/206 58%
.700 - 362/209 57%
.800 - 375/211 56%

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

Unported

.100=67/50
.200=133/94
.300=186/122
.400=235/140
.500=275/151
.600=302/158
.700=322/159

Ported Stage 3 on intake and Stage 2 on exhaust

.100=81/57
.200=156/112
.300=227/151
.400=278/175
.500=311/192
.600=343/204
.700=353/207
.800=375/211

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

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

Aluminum Edelbrock, A429, and TFS CJ Head Flow Numbers

Edelbrock RPM CJ Head

Courtesy of ScottJ

Out of the box

.100 - 82/64 78%
.200 - 156/110 70%
.300 - 225/155 68%
.400 - 279/182 65%
.500 - 323/200 61%
.600 - 341/214 62%
.700 - 347/212 61%
.800 - 350/212 60%

Stage 2 intake and exhaust port

.100 - 79/64 81%
.200 - 153/114 74%
.300 - 225/161 71%
.400 - 278/192 69%
.500 - 324/215 66%
.600 - 353/240 67%
.700 - 365/248 67%
.800 - 380/250 65%

Ford A429 Aluminum CJ Heads Flow Numbers

Courtesy of Brenden Howe

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

2.25 Intake, 1.75 Exhaust

.300=245/172
.400=308/203
.500=350/228
.600=375/241
.700=395/244
.800=401/246

Courtesy of David S

2.25 Intake, 1.76 Exhaust

Lift=Valve lift while testing
Previous CFM = Original flow
Current CFM = Flow after porting % Gain=flow improvement in percent
Exhaust/Intake = Relationship between intake & exhaust flow

Intake Port Test Results

Lift Previous CFM Current CFM % Gain Exhaust/Intake Ratio

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

Aluminum Blue Thunder CJ Heads

Blue Thunder "B" Heads - Flow Development Stages by Charlie Evans

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 them last year.

The "B" heads are the ones with the Chevy style exhaust port, and as most of you know, it is a stock Cobra Jet 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 decimals 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

Dyno Results From These Heads

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.

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?

It looks like you guys have been working your butts off. You better put some wings on that boat, because it looks like its going to 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.

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.

Engine Data

The cam was 270* - 278* @ .050" The lobe separation 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 to 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 piss 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 degrees 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!)

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?

Answers to questions:

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. I didn't see it or I missed it you are running a shorter stroke crank than 4.5. If so I would have thought the HP numbers would have 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?

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 degrees 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 degrees

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!"

What Octane was the Pump gas? Do you think that the 110 would give more HP than the 116?

92 pump octane and yes.

What is the cut of at what compression would you go to the 116, or may be what is the most compression would run on the 110?

Torco 110 is good for 13/13.5 easy enough.

Here's some more BLUE THUNDER info with the Ford exhaust port

514, 13.93com., 40 degree timing, 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 exhaust 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

How much more do you think a set of "a" heads would make on this engine?

The peak intake flow numbers would go from 380cfm to 450 cfm. That's 70 cfm at peak and should be around 100 Hp.

Exhaust Flow Test Results by Charlie Evans

Here's some data that I thought might be interesting to you.

#1. Bruce's new assembled Blue Thunder heads cam in here for some Pocket Porting. They already had a valve job done on them, and a set of no-name valves. I do not know who did the valve job, but that's besides the point. I always try to tell the guys that even though you may have new heads with a brand new valve job, it may not be good enough and I may have to redo the valve job.

Again his heads were new B.T.'s and they had the standard Ford exhaust port location, with the floor of the port filled and raised. Also you need to remember that these heads have a 1.880" exhaust valve.

His out of the box, baseline numbers were;

.100=65.5, .200=107, .300=144, .400=172, .500=189, .600=194.3, .700=193.7, .750=192.3 cfm.

After pocket porting we made some big gains at the high end of the spectrum, here are the numbers;

.100=61.5, .200=113.1 ,.300=147.5, .400=172.6, .500=193.6, .600=213.5, .700=228.4, .750=235.8 cfm.

I still wasn't satisfied and I called Bruce and told him we needed to redo the generic valve job that these exhausts had on them. So with no additional porting, just a change in valve job, here are the numbers;

.100=63, .200=112.4, .300=145, .400=173.8, .500=200.5, .600=225.3, .700=244.4, .750=252.4 cfm.

Now I'm all happy. We gained 7 cfm @ .500, 12 cfm @ .600, 16 cfm @ .700 and 17 cfm @ .750", just by redoing the valve job. Important things to remember are; 1. All my numbers are WITHOUT a flow test pipe. 2. These heads were POCKET PORTED, not fully ported. Although fully ported heads would have flowed more, pocket porting is the best bang for the buck. 3. The Blue Thunder heads have the valve centers spread and have a big 1.880" exhaust valve in them.

Please don't go comparing these flow numbers to a set of ported this, that and another type of heads and start bashing one set or the other. The point I'm trying to make is; that if a Mom and Pop machine shop have been doing good basic 3 angle valve jobs for 20 years, but they don't have a flow bench and/or are unwilling to do R&D in order to find out what makes a good competition valve job, you are leaving a lot of flow potential on the table by getting a generic valve job from them.

Blue Thunder Flow Numbers

Blue Thunder Heads With Chevy Exhaust Port

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

Out of the box - Unported - with a valve job

.100 - 67/60 89%
.200 - 129/114 88%
.300 - 188/148 78%
.400 - 251/176 70%
.500 - 301/194 64%
.600 - 322/207 64%
.700 - 331/215 64%
.750 - 335/219 65%

"Super" Bowl Work/Blending

.100 - 71/61 85%
.200 - 150/118 78%
.300 - 209/158 75%
.400 - 273/188 68%
.500 - 329/213 64%
.600 - 340/237 69%
.700 - 343/258 75%
.750 - 346/266 76%

Fully Ported Street/Strip

.100 - 72/67 93%
.200 - 148/122 82%
.300 - 213/163 76%
.400 - 277/191 68%
.500 - 331/215 64%
.600 - 351/241 68%
.700 - 356/265 74%
.750 - 359/276 76%

Fully Race Ported

.100 - 73/67 91%
.200 - 152/122 80%
.300 - 216/163 75%
.400 - 281/198 70%
.500 - 335/227 67%
.600 - 363/251 69%
.700 - 377/271 71%
.750 - 380/280 73%

Courtesy of ???

Done by Todd Macinzie who worked for Ken Duttweiler with decent clean-up. No exhaust tube.

Intake Exhaust
.100=71/56
.200=142/115
.300=213/158
.400=264/192
.500=302/225
.600=326/248
.700=346/264
.800=360/276

Ford Aluminum SCJ Heads

Aluminum SCJ flow numbers from Team 385 Build in 2003

Courtesy of ScottJ

Cylinder head castings SCJ-B. Jon Kaase's "Super Cobra Jet" castings ported Stage 3 and bench tested by yours truly 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=81/59
.200=155/104
.300=250/146
.400=313/175
.500=359/195
.600=345/206
.700=340/213
.800=331/217

Final flow numbers were...

.100=95/59
.200=166/104
.300=256/153
.400=330/182
.500=380/200
.600=370/217
.700=380/239
.800=370/250

A cross check with Dave’s 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.

Ford Kaase SCJ Info

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

Ford Kaase SCJ Flow Numbers

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.

The above flow data was with Ford valves M-6507-B429 intakes and M-6505-A429 exhausts.

Testing With Different Valves

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 titanium 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.

Data For Valve Length, Tip Length And Installed Height

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" installed height with standard keepers,
5.375" long w/.250" tip.

2. 2.200" Ford M-6507-B-429 1.893" installed height with standard keepers, 5.265" long w/.250" tip.

3. 2.250" S-I #1652SG 1.888" installed height with standard keepers,
5.285" long w/.260" tip.

4. 2.200" Ferrea #F6196 1.888" installed height with standard keepers,
5.271" long w/.250" tip.

Exhaust valves

1. 1.770" S-I #6005SG 2.081" installed height with standard keepers,
5.210" long w/.220" tip.

2. 1.770" REV #HP4004 2.045" installed height with standard keepers,
5.220" long w/.250" tip.

3. 1.800" REV #CL1834 1.965" installed height with standard keepers,
5.155" long w/.250" tip.

4. 1.760" Ford M-6505-A-429 1.935" installed height with standard keepers, 5.060" long w/.260" tip.

5. 1.760" Ferrea #F6258 1.876" installed height with standard keepers,
5.055" long w/.250" tip.

Valve Train Geometry

Courtesy of Randy Malik

The SCJ geometry is good with "stock" length valves. Problems with the geometry can develop on the intake side when "longer" valves are installed. The P-51 head's rocker geometry was changed slightly and ".100" longer" valves are intended to be used with that head.

Ford Aluminum SCJ Flow Numbers

Courtesy of ScottJ

Out of the box

.100 - 73/60 82%
.200 - 155/106 68%
.300 - 222/141 63%
.400 - 275/177 64%
.500 - 314/191 60%
.600 - 317/203 64%
.700 - 316/211 66%
.800 - 321/213 66%

With hand blending

.100 - 81/59 72%
.200 - 155/104 67%
.300 - 250/146 58%
.400 - 313/175 55%
.500 - 359/195 54%
.600 - 345/206 59%
.700 - 340/213 62%
.800 - 331/217 65%

With hand blending and seat & short turn work

.100 - 95/59 62%
.200 - 166/104 62%
.300 - 256/153 59%
.400 - 330/182 55%
.500 - 380/200 52%
.600 - 370/213 57%
.700 - 380/238 62%
.800 - 370/250 67%

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

2.25 x 1.76

Fully ported with no test pipe on exhaust

.100=71/58
.200=159/114
.300=259/161
.400=340/200
.500=394/226
.550=398
.600=375/240
.700=367/248
.750=366
.800=364/252

Kaase P-51 Heads

Basic specs:

310cc intake runners and and 145cc exhaust ports with ports in factory CJ locations
72cc combustion chambers
2.25 in. intake/1.76 in. exhaust size valves

This info was taken from the various posts Mr. Kaase has posted about his new P-51. It has been edited to reflect just the info he has been gathering from his dyno tests and his opinions. Thank you Mr. Kaase for sharing his information.

Info On P-51 Heads

We have been testing a new set of heads (P-51) on a 514 crate engine. The engine has Diamond flat tops, with 2 sets of valve pockets (CJ&SCJ), and a Comp Cams 265/269@.050, .788 lift, 106 LSA roller cam. It has about .015 to .020 deck clearance. We redid the valve job a few times and the heads are 77 cc right now. It figures to 11.95 to 1 compression. It has stock Ford truck rods since it is an early built 514. The heads are as delivered, with CNC chambers and short turns. I'll check flow soon but would guess 400 on the intake. All of the following tests are on race gas. The best so far is 782HP at 6700 with 725 FT/LBS at 5200. These heads are exactly the way we plan to sell them. The manifold has been a stock Victor 460 with a 1150 cfm Demon carb. We have also been working on our own manifold and right now it is a little better than the Victor. Tomorrow we plan to run a stock set of new Ford SCJ's. It will be a fair test, but I'm hoping they're not as good as the P-51's.

Years ago we did make 781 with the first SCJ test heads. I think the difference was that those heads were ported and rubbed on for months, and it had a real good box-type pan. It was also a different dyno. We did however, dyno this engine today with a new set of SCJ's. It had a best of 751 HP with 717 ft lbs. (about 30 less than the P-51's)

2nd Update, P-51 Heads

As discussed before, we have been running our new heads on a 514 crate motor, with a best of 782 HP. We then took a new set of Ford Motorsport SCJ's off the shelf, robbed the springs and retainers from our heads, and ran them on the dyno. The best was 751. This was as fair a test as we could do. Same weather,etc., the only difference was the head castings with valves. The tough part about this is the fact that we are trying to improve on a head that is really good. I have one more cam to try, maybe tomorrow. My goal is to make 800HP with this head on a motor this size, as delivered. I will try to answer some questions I've seen here:

1. The chamber is CNC ported with a slightly better design.

2. The valve bowls are CNC ported to the top of the short turn.

3. The intake short turn approach to the seat and port width at the short turn have been modified to help eliminate the turbulence that is common with high airflow and low port entries.

4. The water jacket has been changed to allow for more agressive porting at the intake short turn floor and side.

5. The intake rocker stud has had an angle and location change. This will help accomidate a larger selection of rocker arm brands. It will also help keep the geometry right when longer valves are used. We are looking at assembling these heads with .100" longer valves.

6. Valve pockets and locations are the same a SCJ's.

7. Pricing should be in line with or slightly less than brand F.

3rd Update, P-51 Heads

We changed cams today, from the 265 cam to a 272/280@.050, .788 lift, 106 LSA roller cam, installed our heads (P-51) back and made a best of 807HP@6600. I'm getting a little scared of the stock truck rods! This is with unported heads and unported victor intake. We have a homemade intake that peaks the same as the Victor, but has a little more downstairs. If and when we get this manifold a good bit better than anything else, we will try to put it into production. I'm out of my element with the single 4-bbl intakes, but I'm learning. We will be working on manifolds for a while because I don't want to port on the heads yet. We're trying to offer packages that will not require porting. Eventually I want to port on the ex ports some and see how much it's worth. If anyone has something they want to see us try on this engine, respond here and we'll see if we can do it. Also, any advice on intakes would be well received.

We have a 460 Motorsport short block and I plan to change it with the 514 assembly.

Sometimes the real challenge is to see how good you can make a cylinder head and still have it remain exactly stock in appearence and outside dimention. Raising the exhaust port would have been the easy way out. The intake is the same way. I never thought about it much until Larry Olson (EPD Cylinder heads) told me that anyone can get a race type head to flow good, but it takes a real man to get one with the port entry down on the deck to flow well. After we run Scott's ported Victor, I may port the exhausts just to see what is's worth. Then again we could take the easy road and raise it up.

4th Update, P-51 Heads

Today I flowed as delivered SCJ and P-51 heads. It was on a 4.390" bore and with a Ford Motorsport exhaust valve. The P-51's dynoed about 30 better than the SCJ's a few weeks ago.

Intake SCJ P-51

100 104 105
200 166 175
300 215 258
400 285 330
500 321 375
600 337 401
700 346 412

Exhaust

100 98 103
200 126 137
300 158 170
400 186 199
500 210 223
600 224 242
700 234 254

When the heads leave our shop I will have already hand blended the casting with the machine marks in the valve bowl and short turn. The heads we've been testing and flowing have been done this way. In all fairness, (espically to those who have already bought Ford's SCJ head) the SCJ's can be ported to flow every bit as good as the P-51. The difference is that our head is already about as good as you can port one. Also, there is more aluminum under the short turn floor and left side wall, where we have been known get the swim fins and mask out. We are now porting on the exhaust ports and will dyno test it with this being the only change.

5th Update, P-51 Heads

I wanted to find out how responsive the exhaust side of the head is to porting. When I started, the unported exhausts flowed around 253 @ .700". We ground the left wall to be a straight line from the bowl to the exit, grinding through the bolt boss and leaving the stud exposed. Also, we streamlined around the guide and completely ported and polished and made a max effort. It flowed about 265 when finished. When we dynoed it, the power was exactly the same with no other changes to the motor. (still a little over 800HP) I was surprised it didn't help at least a little. It could be with the seat ID of 1.56" and 1.76" valve; that is the limiting factor. Still, 800 is pertty good for unported intake ports. Then we ran two days of manifold tests.

Manifold tests

We have been trying our best to come up with an intake manifold that is better than anything you can buy. We have run four different intakes, all within a few hours of each other. The bottom line at this point is that a stock victor 460 is about as good as anything you can do. We tried a port matched Victor, but it was only a little better than a stock one. If you grind out the carb hole square, like the dominator gasket, and run a 2" square open spacer it helps 8-10 HP. I was real excited to get the new TFS R-series 460 intake. It's made to fit their street head, so the port location is low on the SCJ or P-51 head. As it came, it made 50 HP less than the stock Victor 460. I couldn't believe it. With that behind us, I ground the port exits to match the SCJ gasket, going up the runners as far as possible. This helped quite a bit as it made 790. Then we cut the carb hole out to fit a dominator and changed the carb bolt pattern. ( we had been using an adaptor) This brought the power to 805. It was about as good as a Victor 460, only a lot more work. Then I decided to fill the floor of the exits to look like a Victor, going in 4-5". It was about 1/4" at the gasket, tapering to 0 up inside. All this and it made no difference. Not anywhere. What does all this mean? Don't run the TFS on anything but their head or any base iron head. With enough work it may be better than anything out there, but I have not found the sweet spot on it for the P-51 head. Randy Malik is working on his own design manifold and I hope to run it soon.

We will try a tunnel ram next week. A Weiand and our own. On manifolds; the Trick Flow is larger than the Victor, at the port entries and in the middle of the port. It looks really good and is easy to port. It's just not any better anywhere than the victor, at least on this motor. This makes me think that porting the victor and making it overall larger would not help much, if at all. The best overall intake we've tried is a homemade one that is real small in the midsection of the runner. The thing that keeps bothering me is that my Enginemasters 507 Pontiac is 40 ft/lbs and 50 HP better than the Ford. The short block and heads are no better than the Ford, and I think the big difference is the manifold. That's why I've been working in intakes so hard. I think we'll get there but it won't resemble anything you've seen before.

A good portion of the allure of the Pontiac for the Enginemasters was the manifold and the need for the 1" spacer. The center four runners on the Pontiac, when you include the spacer, were about 4" longer than the Ford. That's the battle we're facing right now.

We have bought an Edelbrock Torquer II and will dyno it tomorrow. Also we will be running a Weiand tunnel ram and also one we had cast up.

6th Update, P-51 Heads

Torker II intake

After several requests, we bought an Edelbrock Torker II intake and dyno tested it today. The best this 514 Ford crate motor has been is 806HP/ 720 Ft/Lbs. This was with two different Edelbrock Victor 460s, and a modified Trick Flow R series 460. They were all about the same. The Torker II, out of the box was not bad as it made 746HP/700 Ft/Lbs. It was about the same as the un-modified Trickflow. Both were made to fit the low port base type head but they will bolt onto the SCJ and P-51 head. Then we ported the Torker II to match the P-51 head at the roof. It looked like a tall racetrack pattern port. I didn't make it any wider than the casting, just taller by about 3/8". You don't have to port in too far, about 1 1/4" in. It took 40 minutes. The result was 766HP/710 Ft/Lbs. The average power 4500-6500 was 20 less than the best runs ever with the other race manifolds. This intake is 2 1/2" lower than the Victor. Not bad for a $250 street intake that will clear most hoods! A tunnel ram will be next.

We ran the same 1150 King Demon in all tests thus far. With the TorkerII, I used a Wilson funnel down type 2" adaptor. This setup has shown to be 10HP less than our best 2" open dominator spacer with a 4 hole shear plate on top. If we were to cut out the carb pad on the TorkerII, to a dominator size and change the bolt pattern, I think it would be 10HP better yet. The trick flow picked up 10 when we did this.

7th Update, P-51 Heads

P-51s on 466

Today I changed the 514 Ford short block (really 521") to a 466 Ford Motorsport assembled short block. Besides the stroke difference, 4.3 to 3.85, the compression on this one was 10.2 to 1. The 514 is 12 to 1. It has cast pistons but I doubt they would hurt the power. With a 256/262@.050, .761 lift, 108 LSA roller cam the 466 made a best of 678 HP and 598 Ft/Lbs. I changed the cam to the 272/280@.050, .788 lift, 106 LSA roller cam, the one that was the best in the 514. It then made 701HP, 596 Ft/Lbs. The 466 was about 100 HP less, 55"less and 2 points of compression less. Still it's not bad for a passenger car short block. You have to figure that compression would have helped a ton with the bigger cam. The cast pistons were .010" deck clearance, plus 16cc dish and valve pocket. They already had the SCJ intake relief. I used the unported Victor intake with a 1150 King Demon. All and all, not bad. It took a load good at 2300 rpm with both cams, a little better with the 256-262 cam. Peak power was at 6500, peak torque was at 5000. It was around 450 Ft/Lbs at 2500 rpm. The 256-262 cam fell off 80 HP more than the 272-280 cam at 6800rpm. It would be a pretty good street engine with the smaller one.

Tunnel Ram On The 514

Last week we did run a tunnel ram. It was an old Weiand that had a 4500 two peice top. I had built it in 1986 and ran it on the original A-429 heads. I was a little shocked as it was only a slightly better than the Victor 4-bbl. Peak power was 815. There were a lot more numbers above 800 than with the 4-bbl though. The torque was about 10 better than the 4-bbl. We have another tunnel ram to run soon. This one we designed and had cast.

8th Update, P-51 Heads

Questions This Time

We are trying to get parts ready for the upcoming cylinder heads. We're having 2000 valves made. They are the same supplier as Ford Motorsport, with a few design changes being made. They'll be .100" longer and the intake valve will come with a 30 degree backcut. Guide plates are being made and ARP studs are on the way. For assembled heads, we're trying to come up with good quality components, but keeping the price low is difficult when using top shelf parts. Ford's assembled heads are $400 more than the bare ones (per pair). Figure $240 for valves, $30 for guide plates, $32 for studs, $20 for seals. That only gives us $78 for the springs, retainers, locks and spring locaters. You can see the problem. Also, since we're planning on 2.00" installed height, the springs may be priced higher just because they are taller.
So here are my questions: I need to come up with 3 or 4 affordable spring types to offer with these heads, along with retainers and locaters. Along with that, I would like to get some opinions on what the most popular rocker arms people will be using on these heads. I would like to be able to hit a guy's pushrod needs dead on if I knew what kind of rocker he has and what the valve lift is. A Harland Sharp rocker may need a different pushrod length than a Crane. We will try to work out all these combinations.

9th Update, P-51 Heads

We sent one of the heads to Jomar to have a new stud girdle designed, since the rocker studs have been moved to a more friendly position and angle. Before disassembly, we ran the 466 again and made a best of 722HP, 600 ft lbs. This is a stock +.030, 460 Ford short block with cast pistons, 10.2 compression and never been apart. If we run it to 7200 a few more times it may come apart on its own. Thanks to all who responded to my questions on the #8 post. We are machining heads this week and hope to have them ready within 10 days.

Jon Kaase P-51 Head Flow Numbers

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

2.25 x 1.76

Out of the box

.100"=74/58
.200"=172/106
.300"=260/144
.400"=335/181
.500"=376/210
.550"=388/---
.600"=384/227
.700"=368/240
.750"=367/244
.800"=368/246

Intake bowls pocket ported

.100=74/
.200=171/
.300=260/
.400=337/
.500=384/
.600=399/
.700=403/
.750=404/
.800=407/

Out of the box but with 2.3 Intake valve and valve job changed

.100=73/
.200=149/
.300=245/
.400=328/
.500=388/
.550=409/
.600=395/
.700=377/
.750=372/
.800=369/

Fully ported with 2.3 valve with no test pipe on exhaust

.100=72/57
.200=155/112
.300=253/151
.400=336/187
.500=392/219
.600=423/242
.700=421/255
.750=421/260
.800=418/264

CJ Intake Manifold Info

Blue Thunder 2 X 4 Dual Plane Manifold

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

We did some flow testing today that I thought might be interesting to you. It was to me, because I'm always wanting to learn something. So here's the story. Lem's and my good friend, Lawes Mayfield is going to build a '64 ThunderBolt replica and wants to use a Blue Thunder 2 X 4 dual plane manifold on it's engine for the "nostalgia look". Under the hood will be a strong street/strip engine he is going to build. We all know that a good Victor single plane manifold will outflow the B.T. manifold, but the question was: By how much?

So I thought that the best way to really see the difference was to really tax or "work" the manifolds on a set of OEM, CJ style heads that really flowed good. This would be more valid than testing the manifolds on poor flowing heads that are at the bottom of the food chain. Since Lawes is going to use P-51 heads, then ported and flowed P-51 heads is what we tested the two manifolds on.

First was to baseline flow a ported P-51 head and while we did every runner, we did not test at every lift point. We tested at .400", .600" and .800" lifts. For the baseline test we used the usual radius entry, that we have made out of Lexan for the CJ port entry.

Test 1

Head Flow Numbers with radius entry.

port 1, .400=338, .600=406, .800=421
port 2, .400=341, .600=404, .800=416
port 3, .400=340, .600=409, .800=416
port 4, .400=338, .600=410, .800=421
port 5, .400=338, .600=410, .800=421
port 6, .400=340, .600=409, .800=416
port 7, .400=341, .600=404, .800=416
port 8, .400=338, .600=406, .800=421

Test 2

Head and Fully Ported FRPP H-429 Victor Dominator manifold with clay radius around the carb pad. Also, the opposite bank runners that were not being flowed were sealed off.

port&runner 1, .400=331, .600=390, .800=400
port&runner 2, .400=332, .600=393, .800=395
port&runner 3, .400=328, .600=399, .800=410
port&runner 4, .400=330, .600=395, .800=401
port&runner 5, .400=331, .600=396, .800=401
port&runner 6, .400=328, .600=396, .800=406
port&runner 7, .400=333, .600=394, .800=397
port&runner 8, .400=330, .600=391, .800=402

A well ported FRPP or Edelbrock Victor manifold does a pretty good job of keeping up with the heads, and also that they have pretty even flow distribution between all the corner and inner runners.

Test 3

Here we used Lawes Mayfield's well ported Blue Thunder 2 X 4 dual plane manifold with the CJ size port entry. We bolted the manifold to the heads and proceeded. Again the opposite bank that was not being tested was sealed of and we carefully formed a clay radius around all 8 throttle bore holes. NOTE: Runners # 1, 4, 6, & 7 are UPPER plane. Runners # 2, 3, 5 & 8 are LOWER plane

port&runner 1, .400=299, .600=350, .800=357cfm
port&runner 2, .400=312, .600=366, .800=376cfm
port&runner 3, .400=319, .600=374, .800=390cfm
port&runner 4, .400=297, .600=339, .800=354cfm
port&runner 5, .400=317, .600=370, .800=381cfm
port&runner 6, .400=307, .600=352, .800=364cfm
port&runner 7, .400=319, .600=382, .800=390cfm
port&runner 8, .400=317, .600=374, .800=386cfm

We have a problem here. We knew that the flow wouldn't be as good as the FRPP Victor H-429 manifold, however we did not expect the distribution to be off so much.

As you can see, we have a big problem with runners # 1 & 4, and a lesser problem with runner # 6. Note that they are all upper plane runners. Lawes and I talked about this and in regards to runner # 1 & 4, it seems that they can't "borrow" enough air from the adjacent runners on their plane. In other words, they can't "cross talk " very well.

The Blue Thunder manifold is a pretty good copy of the original Ford rare SK and XE experimental 2 X 4 manifolds. However, B.T. has machined their carb pad a little bit different, and there are 4 individual holes at each pad. The original Ford manifolds had a figure 8 shaped bore between carb hole #1 & #6,,, likewise between #4 & #7. I believe they knew something back then, and right now we're planning on going back and machining the carb pads this way. Let me give full credit to my friend Randy Malik for tipping me off about this.

Now then, as for what to do about runner #6 and it's poor flow, I don't know the answer yet, but we'll study it and try something. If we can get runners # 1, 4, & 6 to flow like the other five runners, I think we'll be pretty well satisified with the B. T. manifold.

What I have left for you mathematicians to do, is the subtract and calculate the differences and then also to figure the percentage drop in flow for each runner, and each manifold. Right now I've just given the test results.

P51, Al CJ / Iron CJ , PI , D0VE Flow Comparison With Intake Attached

Courtesy of Scott Johnson

I have been working on some max effort examples of the Iron CJ, PI and D0VE-C castings to run comparisons of low lift and max lift flow rates both with and with out an intake attached.

The castings were all ported by me utilising the same valve seat angles, chamber unshrouding style and all tested on the same day, same bench and with the same max ported victor dommy intake.

I was somewhat surprised at the results and thought I would share the information. The P-51 and first gen aluminum cj's are added in my last post on the thread.

Flow rates are at 28" water corrected on my flow bench. Clay radius on the intake port and on the dommy carb pad.

...............Iron CJ...PI...D0VE-C.... / Iron CJ.... PI....D0VE-C with Ported intake

Lift
.100" /....80 /86/84....................84/ 86/ 82
.200" /....165/165/169.............159/160/163
.300" /....228/232/234.............235/234/234
.400" /....278/268/274.............278/275/278
.500" /....315/300/303.............310/303/310
.600" /....342/330/327.............338/330/328
.700" /....365/345/341.............356/346/335
.800" /....385/361/350.............370/356/340

Worth noting here is the debunking of the myth that the iron CJ has poor low lift flow rates comparted to the smaller heads. When the heads are all max ported and utilise a CJ port match the flow nubmers are remarkably similar until the increasing cross sectional areas' allow additional flow at the higher lift ranges.

The intake manifold was tweeked in both the plenum area and the runner ends with the runner exits being matched to the CJ gasket excepting the floor which was left flat and raised. The final shape is a "D" with the floor elevated about .200" above the std cj port. Care was taken to minimize flow losses with the manifold attached.

The D0VE castings seem to prefer a victor match and as cast runner exits on the victor intake where the Iron CJ and PI like the D shaped cj runner exits over the as cast dove sized exits and the full CJ match.

It still amazes me how well these ancient castings flow when compared to the bow tie offerings of the same era.

At this point I feel that the D0VE heads are about the best I can do. There is just not enough port to make them bigger or better. The PI's might have a few cfm left and I am sure the iron CJ's have more as evidenced by your work and bretts work.

I was just struck by the similarity of the flow curves till about .600" or so.

I tend to agree with Brett that we need a better intake with a true CJ runner with the correct taper from plenum to exit. A super victor I guess one could call it. This would be really great for the larger stroker combos. The victors plenum seem ancient compared to the CHI intake I used for EMC 2006.

The exhaust flow rates are all very similar between the different castings. The CJ is a bit more noisey / turbulent as is the PI vs the D0VE. The PI seems to have the most refined exhaust port of all of the iron heads excepting the fuelies.

Most of the castings I do flow about 195 to 200 @ .600" lift .

The CJ and PI castings like a "D" shaped CJ match.

The D0VE heads prefer having the port entry matched to the as cast victors dove sized runner which is on the cj centers.

I have not tried doing a CJ match on a pair of TFS streets and then pairing this intake porting style with that. Might be an idea though. The best idea might be to do the "D" shaped entry on the heads and runner exits too.

I have some doubts as this would actually bell mouth the port runner at the flange which creates another set of issues with regard to loss of velocity and disruption of proper runner taper / shape from plenum to valve pocket...

I used a cley radius on the dommy flange of the intakes cloverleaf. I have an older 1050 dommy I could try and even an HVH cloverleaf dommy super sucker.

I'm curious Scott about how the heads stack up when it comes to the "spread" between the good and bad runners on the Victor intake. Are the smaller heads closer together between the good and bad or do they have a similar spread of numbers as the larger better flowing CJ??

Typically the number one runner, which is the one I tested here, is the best or second best of all of the runners with number 2 being best and number 4 being the worst with the intake manifold attached.

For those who do not know the number one and three runners on the BBF are slightly different with regard to the ports location between the pushrod pinches vs the numbers 2 and 4 runners. This makes a slight difference in flow rates when you are looking for that last bit of power.

went ahead and tested a first gen aluminum CJ and the P-51

It is worth noting that the first gen aluminum CJ or A-429 is more in line with the PI heads in both flow rate and cross section. It is not as big as an iron CJ with regard to intake port cross section at the short turn to roof.

The flow rates I have for the P-51 are for the #3 port and after yours truely bunged up the short turn costing 7 cfm peak flow. Mind you this only took .020" removed in the wrong place.


.......P-51...Al CJ...Iron CJ...PI...D0VE-C.../P-51...Al CJ... Iron CJ.... PI....D0VE-C with Ported intake

Lift
.100" /....88/79/80 /86/84....................88/81/84/ 86/ 82
.200" /....159/161/165/165/169.............170/159/159/160/163
.300" /....241/230/228/232/234.............248/229/235/234/234
.400" /....311/275/278/268/274.............309/271/278/275/278
.500" /....357/314/315/300/303.............350/301/310/303/310
.600" /....380/335/342/330/327.............364/327/338/330/328
.700" /....395/349/365/345/341.............373/342/356/346/335
.800" /....400/361/385/361/350.............381/354/370/356/340

Adding an HVH super sucker spacer (1") and holley 1050 dominator cost 8 cfm at .800", 7 cfm @ .700", 4 cfm @ .600, "4 cfm @ .500" and nothing at the lower lifts.

In my opinion I feel that the P-51's ability to move air exceeds the victors capacity to move air. This is where a better intake manifold should come into play.


I appreciate the thanks from all of you regarding this post. Charlie has posted similar figures of his work for you all and I just wanted to show case the best flow rates I have to date for these castings and help place them in some kind of order with regard to performance on a flow bench.

what are the intake port entry dimensions of your max ported TFS street head? Exhaust port exit?

The exhaust port exit stays the same as the out of the box casting is. In other words we don't go making it bigger at the flange surface. There's hardly any benefit in doing that. We 're both very much aware that you want the header gaskets and headers to fit right. If you run the TFS Street head, always use the big CJ header gasket, even though the port exit isn't that big at the bottom.

On the intake ports, what we both are doing is making the TFS Street heads fit an unported virgin Victor intake manifold, if you are going to run the Victor manifold. In doing that, we do have to open up the intake ports at the flange, in a crazy looking direction. Meaning #1 is up and to the left, #2 is up and to the right, #3 is up and to the left, & #4 is up and to the right.

Again on the intake side if you are running the Victor manifold, use the bigger CJ intake gasket.

If you are going to use the Stealth intake or some other intake with DOVE size ports and port spacing, then the intakes don't need to be opened up and you can run a stock DOVE size intake manifold gasket.

A460 Heads

"A" Style head flow numbers

Courtesy of Dave McLain

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 "improvements" 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 successfully on a mud racing 535 cubic inch 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. If IDT can ever get an intake that's actually made for their head that fits this huge port, they might work quite well 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.

Can you post the numbers with a pipe on the exhaust? I lost my flow sheet.

They worked way better than they looked. I'd bet if the 535" engine had a big ass manifold on it, it may not look as good.

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 surprised me was that the Victor intake didn't hurt the flow very much on the bench much to my surprise 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???

What is 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 length. 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.

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!!

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

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......

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.

Thanks a lot 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?

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.

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

Head Porting Tech

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

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 are 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 back cut, and again that’s a no-no. So the rest of this data is about how we took a "sow’s ear" and made a "silk purse" out of it.

I cleaned the heads up with mineral spirits and wire brushed 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 repeatability. 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 back cut on them. Then reinstall them and do another flow test.

2. INTAKES; Back cut
.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 back cutting 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 back cut 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 Speed Reading article in National dragster that; "We want the greatest flow possible through the smallest 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 back cut 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 tulip 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 Jesel 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!

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.

Best Money 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.

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 would like to add and say that I would go with the stainless exhaust valves instead of titanium. Titanium doesn’t 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 on the gas and off the gas, then on the gas again repeatedly took its toll. We switched to premium stainless exhaust valves and never experienced another valve problem again.

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.

332cc "A" intake ports w/2.350" intake valves and less than 340cc are very moderate in size.

I appreciate it. As a side note 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 follow-up 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 is just a pain in the butt (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!"

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, its 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.

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.

Does the same science apply to bowl work on the intake side?

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.

Intake Manifold Info

Why did TFS change the standard 460 water neck to the small block set up?

A little history is in order. When TFS made the old style tunnel ram manifold (that we call the John C. Holmes manifold), its 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 side note 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.

Old style TFS TR manifold. 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.

New TFS 18-bolt heads (Charlie's Part #TFS A460-18E) links:

http://460ford.com/viewtopic.php?t=6084

http://460ford.com/viewtopic.php?t=6114

A-head Flow Numbers

Ford Motorsport A-460 Heads

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

Flow numbers for 3 sets of hand ported Motorsports A-460 heads. All exhaust are flowed WITHOUT a test pipe.

#1 set

2.30In, 1.88Ex

.100=73/62
.200=157/118
.300=237/164
.400=303/212
.500=362/252
.600=399/283
.700=410/301
.750=416/305
.800=421/310

#2 set

Lift, 2.35In, 1.88Ex

.100=75/57
.200=158/110
.300=233/156
.400=297/204
.500=356/244
.600=400/277
.700=430/300
.750=436/306
.800=423/311

#3 set

Lift, 2.40In, 1.90Ex

.100=71/57
.200=152/111
.300=239/158
.400=309/206
.500=362/256
.600=405/285
.700=437/300
.750=449/303
.800=458/306

New-Style TFS A460 91cc Head

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

2.35 x 1.88

Out of the box

.200 - 157/112 71%
.300 - 233/157 67%
.400 - 293/190 64%
.500 - 345/218 63%
.600 - 380/240 63%
.700 - 390/255 65%
.800 - 392/262 66%

Port work done

.200 - 157/128 81%
.300 - 236/164 69%
.400 - 311/209 67%
.500 - 375/265 70%
.600 - 419/297 70%
.700 - 440/318 72%
.800 - 460/331 71%

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

Ported by BJ's Cylinder Head Service and flowed by Charlie Evans

2.392 intake valve, 1.920 exhaust valve, non-tulip, without a pipe

.100=74/69
.200=153/140
.300=237/180
.400=311/224
.500=368/265
.600=416/296
.700=450/314
.800=452/327

EX514 Head

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

These are hand ported and the valve sizes are In = 2.35 and Ex = 1.900. With out test pipe.

.100=70/67
.200=148/116
.300=225/154
.400=296/190
.500=359/229
.600=405/268
.700=435/298
.750=442/308
.800=447/317
.850=457/324

C-Heads

Ford C460 Heads

C- Head flow numbers after clean-up

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?

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.

Flow Test Results: Dan Tyner's Heads

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

Saturday was visitor’s 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, and 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 back cut does on an intake valve.
2. The effect of a tulip 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 back cut 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 flow bench, the intake valve dropped out of it and a proper 30* back cut was ground on the valve. Results AFTER the back cut 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 back cut 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 probably 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* back angle 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 back angle 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.

One thing I'm curious about Charlie, the numbers on the high lift for the exhaust side. Is that because of the different direction on the air flow?

The steep back angle 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 back angle the air has something to give it guidance and direction, it comes off "clean", sort of' 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.

Typically they (tulip) are not better in an 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?

Sometimes I See Things Happen on the Flow Bench that I don't understand. Lot's of times it's like two steps forward and then one step backward.

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 similar".

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 back angle 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.

Tulip Valve reasoning, 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 its 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.

Dave; I Think You're Right, 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.

The 22 degree can help in some instances with a D00E-R. 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.

Ford C-460 Head Flow Tech Data

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

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 exhausts were 1.900". Although the owner didn’t ask me to, I threw them on the flow bench just to see how well 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 out flowing 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.

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 especially down in the bowl area might make the port work better because it makes the transition from the port to the cylinder more gradual?

Which style of port is more affected by the installation 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?

Volume at the high lifts is such that the air speed wants to see more area/shape over the short side and a bigger bowl. Otherwise the air becomes turbulent and "stalls" the port.

Charlie have you ever had the opportunity to test your small 332 CC head vs. the larger 378 cc intake runner on the dyno and in a drag car?

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.

Charlie I've only had one 477 and it made 902 @ 7100. It had 2.35 intakes and 1.80 exhausts on a 4.440 bore. A Comp Cams cam with about .837 gross lift on the intake. The intake port was just a clean up with stock sized runner area. The same on the exhaust.

Profiler Heads

Courtesy of Charlie Evans

The web site says 524 cfm @ .900" lift and goes on to say that this can vary some depending on the valve job and etc. The set I showed Dave I had just finished, and they flow an average of 546.6 cfm @ .900" lift, and 360 cfm on the exhausts @ .900' lift without a test pipe. Of course they flow even more at .950 and 1.000" lifts. Profiler says this is a "cast as ported" head, which it is, however I assure you that if you don't port them, you're leaving some on the table. The flow numbers from another shop, for an unported set, weren't all that great.

The Profiler site also says you can run stainless steel valves, but I sure wouldn't. At this level we're talking titanium valves all the way. We're getting better flow numbers out of them (Profilers) with the 420 cc port, than either of the sets of flow numbers that E.T. Performance gives for their 400 cc port, or their bigger 440 cc port Thor heads, so I really like the heads.

I've also had my hands on a couple of different E-460 Pro Stock heads and we've flowed them. Surprisingly the 1.000" flow numbers of the Profiler heads are not too far behind the 1.000" flow numbers of the E-460 heads. The Profilers use a 2.450" intake whereas the E-460 heads have a 2.520" intake, so that's certainly a part of it. Just call me if you have any other questions.