572 or 605?

Curt wrote:

cool40 wrote:what do you think about the idt 903a plus cnc'd with 2.5/1.82....

I think that is a very Large request! You are going to exceed the 4" rule, and make your valves kiss

that's only applicable to factory style heads

Ya, sorry. I thought the IDTs were similar to the factory castings.

i got to look at some 903a's and they "look"very good,i'm wondren what everybody else knows about them. they may be too much head for a 572?

Ported tfs stuff works very well or flowing and reporting what you have and adding a new style tfs intake, updated valvetrain and 572" would work well? Don't count the older castings out as they are capible of very good power too.

Obviously I knew nothing about them. I thought they had stock valve placement.

Further study shows that are in the same family as the A heads. Maybe not quite as good as the new TFS A's, but close, if properly prepared in the hands of a master. They are'nt the "must have heads", but they would work nicely on a 572 with properly matched components.

their website has the 903A plus at 511cfm intake& 390cfm ex.thats the full cnc deal.i bet a 2.5 titanium valve would be a big plus in them too.

cool40 wrote:their website has the 903A plus at 511cfm intake& 390cfm ex.thats the full cnc deal.i bet a 2.5 titanium valve would be a big plus in them too.

You're probably not going to want to hear my opinion on this, however here it is.

The 2.350" diameter A-460 stainless steel valves weigh anywhere from 155 gms. to 168 gms. depending on the brand of valve, and stem length. 7000 to about 7300 rpm with those valve weights is fine for drag racing, with no problems maintaining control. Truck pulling is a different story and IMO we need to immediately start looking at titanium valves, because those guys twist the engines higher and hold it up there for 18 seconds or so. If you don't believe me, ask Leon Mathis an engine builder from southern Indiana.

IMO after you go to a 2.400" valve or bigger, you better start using a titanium valve, whether you are drag racing or truck pulling either one. I have some big stainless steel valves here that I use for mock up purposes only. A 2.420" C head valve weighs 182 gms. A 2.450" C head valve weighs 186 gms and a 2.500" Thor head valve weighs 192 gms. IMO anything from 170 gms on up is too heavy for a good racing engine. The engine stops being a bracket race engine, and becomes a top sportsman engine so to speak, once you go with titanium valves.

Now then, there will be some that argue that you can get by with a heavy valve, by using bigger and stronger valve springs, such as some of the triple LSM offerings or PSI springs, of course they cost more too. The problem with bigger, stronger valve springs is that they start hurting other parts such as rockers, lifters and pushrods. So by the time you upgrade those parts, with items such as bigger diameter lifters, (in order to have a bigger roller wheel) big diameter pushrods, and shaft mounted rocker arms, you got more money tied up in them and you might as well gone ahead and gotten titanium valves in the first place.

So it's a fine line that you cross (concerning valve weight) and once you do, then if you're going to use titanium valves and shaft mounted rockers on A-460 heads, then you might as well gone ahead and gotten C-460 heads or Pro-Filer 205 heads, rules permitting. I personally have been there and done that.

Hope this helps,

Charlie

thanks charlie,i figured on getting titanium valves for whatever i do.i did'nt know how the idt head compare to others cuz nobody ever has much to say about them.i'm gona go 572 and put money in the heads and see what i can get out of it,thanks for the help everybody.

cool40 wrote:their website has the 903A plus at 511cfm intake& 390cfm ex.thats the full cnc deal.i bet a 2.5 titanium valve would be a big plus in them too.

Think you can already make these numbers easier with a Profiler, but Charlie knows that better then me....

And if you want to run more then .800 lift with triple springs (2.100 inst height) and the shaft rocker system you can better use a C460 style head then the A460.
I'm running now the A460 heads but thinking about switching to a real shaft rocker head like the C460, Profiler or THOR because I think that I will have a better head for almost the same amount of money.....

Frank

i looked at the profiler's they're proud of them too.none of the good stuff's cheap. what's the pro's and con's of shaft rockers? i have never had any but did'nt know i was missen anything.

One of the reasons the Pro-Filer 205 heads are more money, is because they come with copper berilyum seats. These are what the really high end heads use, and they do cost a good bit more than the regular ductile iron seats. The Pro-Filer heads come with the seats and guides already installed, as do many other heads on the market. In comparison though, the Thor heads come with the seats and guides in bag. You install the guides and the intake seats, and then you finish boring the exhaust seat cut and press in the exhaust seat. This work is an additional cost for whomever you choose to prep your Thor heads and eventually gets passed on to the final customer.

As for your question about shaft mounted rockers. They are considered the better set-up on high end racing heads, due to increased valve train stability. Just for example, all the NASCAR Sprint Cup series engines use shaft mounted rockers, along with copper berilyum seats.

Hope this helps,

Charlie

I believe the IDT heads are a good option and were made for just this sort of happening.
You ALREADY have all "A" head parts but, you are wanting "C" head horsepower.

If you were starting from "scratch" then the Profiler head would definately be the way to go, in my oppinion. However, the IDT "A" head takes advantage of "C" head type valve lifts and airflows to accomplish an upgrade, (and of course a higher maintainance schedule with higher valve lifts), for the EX514 or TFS "A" heads without the NEED to get all the other engine parts which ARE required when going to a different "family" of cylinder head.
Titanium intake valves are a MUST with any advanced head or simply stay with what you have.

thanks for all the help everybody.i think i like the looks of the idt heads and they can be upgraded to titanium valves [which i'll have].being able to use the valvetrain parts i have will be a plus too.

rmcomprandy wrote:I believe the IDT heads are a good option and were made for just this sort of happening.
You ALREADY have all "A" head parts but, you are wanting "C" head horsepower.

If you were starting from "scratch" then the Profiler head would definately be the way to go, in my oppinion. However, the IDT "A" head takes advantage of "C" head type valve lifts and airflows to accomplish an upgrade, (and of course a higher maintainance schedule with higher valve lifts), for the EX514 or TFS "A" heads without the NEED to get all the other engine parts which ARE required when going to a different "family" of cylinder head.
Titanium intake valves are a MUST with any advanced head or simply stay with what you have.

i didn't know the idt a heads was better than c's. whats the 4'' rule mean i've never heard of it..thanks eric

That's what we all need.......an A460 package with a 2-1/2" intake valve....get the boring bar out. 4.625" bore would be a starter kit for that deal.

fatal addiction wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:I believe the IDT heads are a good option and were made for just this sort of happening.
You ALREADY have all "A" head parts but, you are wanting "C" head horsepower.

If you were starting from "scratch" then the Profiler head would definately be the way to go, in my oppinion. However, the IDT "A" head takes advantage of "C" head type valve lifts and airflows to accomplish an upgrade, (and of course a higher maintainance schedule with higher valve lifts), for the EX514 or TFS "A" heads without the NEED to get all the other engine parts which ARE required when going to a different "family" of cylinder head.
Titanium intake valves are a MUST with any advanced head or simply stay with what you have.

i didn't know the idt a heads was better than c's. whats the 4'' rule mean i've never heard of it..thanks eric

I read my post 10 times now and NOWHERE in there have I claimed that IDT "A" heads are BETTER than "C" heads.
I am almost certain that the Profiler heads are better performers than "C" heads, (at least my experience has shown me that), and the IDT ported "A" heads are ALMOST on par with a "C" head horsepower wise with equal valve lifts, yet retain all "A" head hardware.

DON'T try to put words in my mouth ... !

Lem Evans wrote:That's what we all need.......an A460 package with a 2-1/2" intake valve....get the boring bar out. 4.625" bore would be a starter kit for that deal.

the profiler's have a 2.450,is the valve angle better on them as far as the bore goes?what kinda intake fit's the profiler?thanks

cool40 wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:That's what we all need.......an A460 package with a 2-1/2" intake valve....get the boring bar out. 4.625" bore would be a starter kit for that deal.

the profiler's have a 2.450,is the valve angle better on them as far as the bore goes?what kinda intake fit's the profiler?thanks

Profilers require a sheet metal intake, I know Charlie has got some impressive flow numbers out of them compared to the C heads. Valve angles are comparable to the C heads i believe.

The "C" intake valves are in a more favorable location that the "A" stuff.

Nevs wrote:

cool40 wrote:

Lem Evans wrote:That's what we all need.......an A460 package with a 2-1/2" intake valve....get the boring bar out. 4.625" bore would be a starter kit for that deal.

the profiler's have a 2.450,is the valve angle better on them as far as the bore goes?what kinda intake fit's the profiler?thanks

Profilers require a sheet metal intake, I know Charlie has got some impressive flow numbers out of them compared to the C heads. Valve angles are comparable to the C heads i believe.

Partially SO ... a "C" head cast intake will fit onto a Profiler head with just a spacer gasket at the flange. The valve angles ARE compatible.

Guys,

The Pro-Filer 205 intake port is raised .200" over the C-460 head's intake port. Also, the port has very rounded corners as compared to the C-460's rectangular shaped ports. If you want to run a cast single four barrel intake manifold on the Pro-Filer 205 heads, you can, by using the FRPP C-460 intake and .200" thick spacers on each side. In fact I make these spacers and the China wall spacer to go with them. I have about 50 sets of them in inventory right now if anybody wants a set.

You still have somewhat of a problem transitioning from a rectangular port in the manifold, to the tall oval shaped port in the head. Port matching is required. What Lawes and I have done, is go up in the manifold runners and do some welding, epoxy filling etc.. Nevs, if you come to the Ford Bash, take a look at Bobby Small's new Pro-Filer headed engine in his American Racecars dragster. It has the C-460 intake and these spacers on it. Look close, because everything lines up and fits like a champ, and you'd think it was all made for each other.

Now then, IF you want to run the TFS cast tunnel ram A-460 intake manifold on Pro-Filer 205 heads, I make an adapter kit for that also, and have a customer in California running this combo. The spacers in this case are really thick, because the A-460 intake manifold needs to be raised about 1", in order to fit properly on the Pro-Filer heads.

Hope this helps,

Charlie

Charlie,

At the seminar you said that Pro-Filer was working on a canted valve version of there head. Is this head still coming or did I mis hear you.

Todd

realy good info guy's.how much hp would a good "c"or profiler type head have on a "A"or idt head if used on the same engine with one carb?thanks for the input on all this.

Todd,

I believe it was our quest speaker Darin Morgan from Pro-Filer that said the canted valve version was on the way. The prototype work has been done by Darin and we're waiting on the foundry side of the house to get it done. I am hopeful that by mid-summer those new castings may be ready.

Thanks,
Charlie