Trick flow 290 or super cobra jet

Relative to the sharing thing.... if reports of dyno & flow bench results are likely to be dismissed as being somewhere between suspect & pure fabrication I'm not real sure why those that have such info would bother posting their results.....getting back to the "ridicule" thing.

I've heard and read some claims over the years that I thought may be suspect & I suspect most of them were but, a guy can not assume that every current gain is smoke and mirrors. A good example of this would be the gains Phillip has achieved with his C460 headed program in the past 1-1/2years. 5 years ago if someone said that they had the flowbench/dyno/on track performance he has now I would have doubted it.

If a program is gonna remain relevant a guy can't assume the other guy is full of shit and not keep pushing the envolope.

an interesting artical from Mondello on valve jobs, its pretty basic but informative.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/16025/the_inside_angle_on_valve_seats_what_you_need_to_know_to_go_with_the_flow.aspx

[quote="Lem Evans"]Relative to the sharing thing.... if reports of dyno & flow bench results are likely to be dismissed as being somewhere between suspect & pure fabrication I'm not real sure why those that have such info would bother posting their results.....getting back to the "ridicule" thing.

I've heard and read some claims over the years that I thought may be suspect & I suspect most of them were but, a guy can not assume that every current gain is smoke and mirrors. A good example of this would be the gains Phillip has achieved with his C460 headed program in the past 1-1/2years. 5 years ago if someone said that they had the flowbench/dyno/on track performance he has now I would have doubted it.

If a program is gonna remain relevant a guy can't assume the other guy is full of shit and not keep pushing the envolope. [/quote
I limit what post now. It simplifies things.]

dfree383 wrote:an interesting artical from Mondello on valve jobs, its pretty basic but informative.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/16025/the_inside_angle_on_valve_seats_what_you_need_to_know_to_go_with_the_flow.aspx

Good info Dave,that berillium dust sounds like some dangerious stuff though

bbf-falcon wrote:

dfree383 wrote:an interesting artical from Mondello on valve jobs, its pretty basic but informative.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/Article/16025/the_inside_angle_on_valve_seats_what_you_need_to_know_to_go_with_the_flow.aspx

Good info Dave,that berillium dust sounds like some dangerious stuff though

Rick,

Berillium is a bad mofo...
We use it to manufacture bushing when we rebuild the landing gear for our planes..
Paper suits, respirators, face shields and a vac system have to used anytime we do it..

Forget about the berillium seats and just coat the seating area of the valve with DLC. Issue resolved .

Ok, all you professional builders, I have an 85 Tbird 3200lbs with me in it. Which head is going to be faster out of the box, TFS290s or SCJ-A? 466", 10-10.5 comp, Comp XR292 R10 cam, 2" primaries, Proform 850 race carb, Torker2 intake. Running 93 Sunoco with Lucas ethanol stabilizer. Bear in mind these 2 heads I have easy access to. My goal is consistantly in the 6s 1/8th mile. With stock DOVE heads, perf RPM intake and cam, 850 Proform, 35 degrees, it wont do it(7.15 42% humid,83degrees, 2608D altitude) Letting the C6 shift in D at 5300(slows down if I manually shift at 5500) I still have another 200lbs to strip for a different goal (under 3000lbs). I could just port the DOVE heads, but the 60lbs for alum heads is attractive as I prefer skinny women, lol. BTW, car is back-halfed with ladder bars and 32x14-15 Mickeys.

I do have an SCJ governor for the trans and know how to modify the governor to get more RPM out of auto shifting. (deadly consistant shifting on its own)

The TFS heads would be a bolt on if your pistons have enough valve relief. The SCJs would require a piston change for sure due to the different valve locations.

Either head would be good for you goals and would be a good foundation to build on.

dfree383 wrote:Id be willing to bet the SCJ head will make a little more power than the TFS out of the box. The TFS having a slightly small port may make a little more torque.

I have done several Wide Open Throttle power comparisons on a dyno ... below about .700" intake valve lift the SCJ's are superior and above .700" valve lift, the TFS 290 heads using "Victor" location intake ports are superior; (those don't come out of the box with CJ size intake ports).

I mis-spoke, the Ford heads I have access to are the 6049-A429 heads. Is there much difference between them and the currently available heads from FRPP? And yes I do see how much different the piston is than a standard 460 piston.

awgeez wrote:I mis-spoke, the Ford heads I have access to are the 6049-A429 heads. Is there much difference between them and the currently available heads from FRPP? And yes I do see how much different the piston is than a standard 460 piston.

BIG difference ... air flow curves, valve locations and combustion chambers are the most prevalent.

Going back to the original posters questions in 2013 lol I would use the SCJ heads with a bowl blend and a 30 back cut.

The .700 peak lift on the TFS heads look good, but with a hyd flat tappet you more than likely wont get to .700 lift and if it does, it wont be there but a Nano second. the SCJ's 550-600 lift blended flow numbers will be perfect for a Hyd flat tappet deal.

And there's not that big of a difference on cross section to make a difference on a 500+ engine.

IDT-572 wrote:Going back to the original posters questions in 2013 lol  I would use the SCJ heads with a bowl blend and a 30 back cut.

The .700 peak lift on the TFS heads look good, but with a hyd flat tappet you more than likely wont get to .700 lift and if it does, it wont be there but a Nano second. the SCJ's 550-600 lift blended flow numbers will be perfect for a Hyd flat tappet deal.

And there's not that big of a difference on cross section to make a difference on a 500+ engine.

X2

rmcomprandy wrote:

awgeez wrote:I mis-spoke, the Ford heads I have access to are the 6049-A429 heads. Is there much difference between them and the currently available heads from FRPP? And yes I do see how much different the piston is than a standard 460 piston.

BIG difference ... air flow curves, valve locations  and combustion chambers are the most prevalent.

I can see the difference in the pistons. So in your opinion are the A429s better than the SCJ-A (or B for that matter) or TFS290s out of the box for an engine below 6-6200, on pump gas in a 3000lb bracket car that NEVER sees street duty?

awgeez wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

awgeez wrote:I mis-spoke, the Ford heads I have access to are the 6049-A429 heads. Is there much difference between them and the currently available heads from FRPP? And yes I do see how much different the piston is than a standard 460 piston.

BIG difference ... air flow curves, valve locations  and combustion chambers are the most prevalent.

I can see the difference in the pistons. So in your opinion are the A429s better than the SCJ-A (or B for that matter) or TFS290s out of the box for an engine below 6-6200, on pump gas in a 3000lb bracket car that NEVER sees street duty?

NO ... those A429 heads were discontinued BECAUSE the newer design aluminum SCJ's were designed and being produced.

robbie mav grabber wrote:Which heads for street have a victor4150 intake custom grind comp cam 685 lift Hyd 850 do stroked to 532

I don't know if you are looking at OTB comparisons or not, but the listing I saw assembled, the SCJ head is limited to .660 lift while the TFS 290 can be had with 2 different spring set ups, .680 lift and up to .850 lift. If you are going to have the valves of the SCJ's backcut and not an off the shelf bolt on, you might need to also purchase a different spring package to accommodate your .685 lift. The TFS also comes with an optional Ti retainer. Also to utilize the upper RPM power the Victor offers you might want to research the TFS 325 CNC ported heads.

The PAC 1243 springs that come on the SCJB are rated for .700" net lift.

Edit: At 1.900" installed ht.

Lem Evans wrote:The PAC 1243 springs that come on the SCJB are rated for .700" net lift.

Thanks Lem........ that's the difference between someone who knows from experience and the catalog specifications. Summit does specify the difference between the A and B head is in the springs. Flat tappet vs. Roller, but shows the lift on both @ .660. Thanks for the clarification.

Colt Macara wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:The PAC 1243 springs that come on the SCJB are rated for .700" net lift.

Thanks Lem........ that's the difference between someone who knows from experience and the catalog specifications. Summit does specify the difference between the A and B head is in the springs. Flat tappet vs. Roller, but shows the lift on both @ .660. Thanks for the clarification.

That's why you buy from Lem and not Summit...... just say'n

If a guy was going to run a lot of lift, the installed ht. should be checked on all brands of cylinder heads. Sometimes they are installed a little short.