Edelbrck vs Trick Flow

-
And I would also like to add that I think I was maybe having a trans issue. I pulled the pan a month ago and it looked like coffee grind size prices of metal inside and all over the filter. I have since then bought a converter and trans with a brake from Pittsburghracer. My old trans I was foot braking.
 
And I would also like to add that I think I was maybe having a trans issue. I pulled the pan a month ago and it looked like coffee grind size prices of metal inside and all over the filter. I have since then bought a converter and trans with a brake from Pittsburghracer. My old trans I was foot braking.

foot braking shouldn't make it run any different. But a bad tranny sure would.
Good luck next outing
 
I am assuming the TF vs Eddys are same cc size? Are you using same head gasket? If there was a drop in compression? That could show up a bit on the low end? Then the TF are just outflowing, thus out HP on the big end? If this is the case? They're doing what was expected.

Edelbrocks are 63, TF are 60. That's what both are advertised as. Didn't actually measure to double check. Same head gasket thickness used, so just a slight bump in compression if CC's are as they say they are.
 
Are you talking about trap speeds? The speedmaster heads were untouched. I had bought them bare, non CNC and just threw some some valves I hand lapped and some springs. The trick-flows are out of the box. Same .590 purple shaft, m1 single plane and proform 850, 4.56 Dana with 28x10.50 pro bracket radials. 8" coan converter that flashes at 4800.

yes, he is asking about the trap speeds with each head combination. can you let us know?
 
11.35@ 114 10.96@117. I got the 1.55 springs with chromoly retainers. Once again I ran out of gear on the 10.96 pass. My track runs mostly 1/8 mile so I don't know if I'm going to change the gears. I would love it if they made a 29x12.40 pro bracket radial.
 
11.35@ 114 10.96@117. I got the 1.55 springs with chromoly retainers. Once again I ran out of gear on the 10.96 pass. My track runs mostly 1/8 mile so I don't know if I'm going to change the gears. I would love it if they made a 29x12.40 pro bracket radial.

both those MPH’s are ultra low. 114 mph is usually for 11.70 cars.
117 for 11.30’s or so. Down on power either way a good bit.
Got something serious going on somewhere.
Have you ever checked slip in the convertor? Almost sounds like the vert is ultra loose in high gear
 
Both of those passes I had lifted due to turning too many RPM. P the 10 second pass was lifted around 1000 ft and got back into some. The 11:35 pass I can't really recall but I know it was high in RPM as well
 
My dad was finally able to get to test his combo with the new Trick Flow 190's today. I'm a bit disappointed in the performance, but I'm thinking there's something holding the car back, just have to figure out what. With some tuning hoping it'll pickup some.

Some specs on the car:
Car is a 1973 Duster - 3250ish race weight
Dana 60 4.56 gears
727 8" 5000 stall ATI convertor
Super stock springs
Doug 1 5/8" headers with a 18" collector into a 12" bullet muffler
750 Holley Carb
Lunati Flat Tappet .550/571 lift 256/268 dur

Engine:
360 bored .030 with scat 408 stroker kit. (5 cc flat top pistons)

Basically he just swapped the OOTB Edelbrocks for the OOTB Trick Flows with a few minor changes.

Edelbrock vs Trick Flow changes
273 rockers - Mancini 1.6 rockers - pushrods ended up being a little longer as well
Both engines used Victor 340 intakes that were OOTB, but it was a different intake on each motor.


Edelbrock - Trick Flow 190
1.497 - 60 ft - 1.505
4.454 - 330 ft- 4.452
7.012 - 1/8 et - 6.981
95.58 - 1/8 mph - 96.96
1000 ft - 9.193
1/4 et - 11.079
1/4 mph - 119.21

He ran the Edelbrock heads setup for a year. It was pretty much a high 7.0 car in the 1/8 in the summer and low 7.0 in good air. The run above was in Sept of the year. He never made a 1/4 mile pass with that setup. Only have 1 weekend thus far of testing the Trick Flows, so we will see how it preforms. He ended up getting in a gamblers race and the car went 6.98 5 times in the 1/8 so it's deadly consistent, I just thought he'd been in the 6.70s, or 6.80s atleast.
So, I would guess you are seeing the limitations of your small cam and headers on those heads. If you step up to a bigger header (1 7/8 is what I would do) and a bigger cam (something in the 260° duration at 0.05 and something north of 0.600 lift) it will pick up a LOT in my opinion.

My Barracuda is the same weight, with a 5k converter, 727, 4.10 gears, ported Edelbrocks that flow 293 @0.600, Victor intake, 750dp, 264/268 @0.05 with approximately 0.630 lift, and I have 1 3/4 headers (but I want 1 7/8 someday)......she runs 6.44 in the 1/8 and about 10mph faster than your current. Will yours do that same, IDK....but it should go quite a bit faster with better matched parts (I know money doesn't grow on trees, so build at your own pace and enjoy).
 
Both of those passes I had lifted due to turning too many RPM. P the 10 second pass was lifted around 1000 ft and got back into some. The 11:35 pass I can't really recall but I know it was high in RPM as well

what were the 1/8 times and MPH. Gear shouldnt affect those at all
 
117 with a 4.56 and a 28” tire.......using a converter that’s slipping a full 10% at the traps would put you at 7000.
Were you revving higher than that?
 
94 and 98. Do I rev it to 7k, no but I was on the chip that was at 7300 around 1000'.
Also looking at the 1000' times slower pass was 9.39@106. faster pass was 9.06@111
 
Last edited:
94 and 98. Do I rev it to 7k, no but I was on the chip that was at 7300 around 1000'.

if it was at 7300 at 1000 foot the convertor is junk or your tranny is toast.
I have 4.30 gear and 28 radial, at 118 mph i am at 6400 through traps. Figure a 4.56 would add 250 rpm’s to that
 
if it was at 7300 at 1000 foot the convertor is junk or your tranny is toast.
I have 4.30 gear and 28 radial, at 118 mph i am at 6400 through traps. Figure a 4.56 would add 250 rpm’s to that
It is very possible. Like I said earlier pan was full of metal, not a flake or two, a bunch. 60' in my opinion should have been better. Went 1.47 once and after that just hovering around 1.50, leaving at 3000rpm. We will see how the new to me trans and converter work in a few weeks.
 
It is very possible. Like I said earlier pan was full of metal, not a flake or two, a bunch. 60' in my opinion should have been better. Went 1.47 once and after that just hovering around 1.50, leaving at 3000rpm. We will see how the new to me trans and converter work in a few weeks.
Yes the converter is likely the problem...and the more power you put to a bad converter the slower it'll go even with more power. Converters are KEY!! I've had several customers go through this and blame the engine, only to find down the road it was the converter.
 
if it was at 7300 at 1000 foot the convertor is junk or your tranny is toast.
I have 4.30 gear and 28 radial, at 118 mph i am at 6400 through traps. Figure a 4.56 would add 250 rpm’s to that

I have held my tongue so to speak on a lot of ur posts .
How do u account for the fact that , the only time I took my car to the strip , before the rings were seated , w/ too small rear tires that didnt hook real well , ''absolutely no front end lift'' , went 11.90`s the first time out , at 119 something mph ___???
 
I have held my tongue so to speak on a lot of ur posts .
How do u account for the fact that , the only time I took my car to the strip , before the rings were seated , w/ too small rear tires that didnt hook real well , ''absolutely no front end lift'' , went 11.90`s the first time out , at 119 something mph ___???

not sure what point you are trying to make?
If you are going 11.90 at 119 mph that tells me the car is making excellent power, but not hooking. Usually spinning the tires at the hit will result in a slower ET, but the Mph will still be stout because of the wheel speed generated by spinning wont hurt Mph much..
I tried a radial on a 9.90 car i had bias ply tires on. Went 134.
Took it to track the next time out with radials. Went 10.30 at 133, spinning like crazy. Could never get them to work. ET way worse, MPH almost identical.
Super stock springs didnt like the radial. Took them back off
In the case of the OP, if he is going 7300 rpm at 1000 feet, its pretty obvious it isn't spinning that far out causing the excessive Rpm, its an issue with vert or tranny, something both PRH and OU812 came along and said as well.
Does that make sense, or address what you are talking about.
By the way, rings seat up mighty quick. I had Best Machine build my W5 motor. Took it immediately to the track, first pass it ran was typical of what it ran the rest of the years i had it. Kinda an old wives tale about rings taking hundreds of miles or numerous track hits to seat. Not my experience at all
 
Last edited:
Yes the converter is likely the problem...and the more power you put to a bad converter the slower it'll go even with more power. Converters are KEY!! I've had several customers go through this and blame the engine, only to find down the road it was the converter.

Been there, done that. I added probably 100 hp with a small et gain and lost 60'. My buddies watching said they couldn't hear the shifts as the car passed by.
 
not sure what point you are trying to make?
If you are going 11.90 at 119 mph that tells me the car is making excellent power, but not hooking. Usually spinning the tires at the hit will result in a slower ET, but the Mph will still be stout because of the wheel speed generated by spinning wont hurt Mph much..
I tried a radial on a 9.90 car i had bias ply tires on. Went 134.
Took it to track the next time out with radials. Went 10.30 at 133, spinning like crazy. Could never get them to work. ET way worse, MPH almost identical.
Super stock springs didnt like the radial. Took them back off
In the case of the OP, if he is going 7300 rpm at 1000 feet, its pretty obvious it isn't spinning that far out causing the excessive Rpm, its an issue with vert or tranny, something both PRH and OU812 came along and said as well.
Does that make sense, or address what you are talking about.
By the way, rings seat up mighty quick. I had Best Machine build my W5 motor. Took it immediately to the track, first pass it ran was typical of what it ran the rest of the years i had it. Kinda an old wives tale about rings taking hundreds of miles or numerous track hits to seat. Not my experience at all

Was referring to the 114 mph bit. My rings took a while to seat , second ring is gapless --------???
Maybe not the entire right combination of machine work and ring mat`l , or -------goes like hell now tho. , traction not great and off the shelf hughs convertor .
 
Was referring to the 114 mph bit. My rings took a while to seat , second ring is gapless --------???
Maybe not the entire right combination of machine work and ring mat`l , or -------goes like hell now tho. , traction not great and off the shelf hughs convertor .

what i said was 114 mph is typical of about an 11.70 ish pass, not 11.35.
I stand by that. That all assumes everything is working ok.
The OP obviously has something not right.. vert/ tranny.
He started the post to ask for thoughts on why.
 
I had a converter go in my powerglide last year and went from 6’0’s to 6.30’s and couldn’t cut a light worth crap. Stall dropped from 5600 to 4300.
 
what i said was 114 mph is typical of about an 11.70 ish pass, not 11.35.
I stand by that. That all assumes everything is working ok.
The OP obviously has something not right.. vert/ tranny.
He started the post to ask for thoughts on why.
Lol, I am not the op. I was simply stating my experience for reference, and the thread got off course. My apologies to the op. The point I was trying to make was that I don't see much improvement 1/8mile mainly on the big end.

Now I'm thinking I was running through the old converter.
 
I have held my tongue so to speak on a lot of ur posts .
How do u account for the fact that , the only time I took my car to the strip , before the rings were seated , w/ too small rear tires that didnt hook real well , ''absolutely no front end lift'' , went 11.90`s the first time out , at 119 something mph ___???
I would account for that by saying... you have really good power, in a chassis that dont work. 119mph is very low 11s power, in a good working car. You described yourself how your car works.
 
Lol, I am not the op. I was simply stating my experience for reference, and the thread got off course. My apologies to the op. The point I was trying to make was that I don't see much improvement 1/8mile mainly on the big end.

Now I'm thinking I was running through the old converter.
...running through the old converter....
There was a racer at our 1/8 mile track with a 50 chevy coupe, that had a small sprintcar engine in it, that he spun to 8000 rpm plus. If you listened to it as it maxe a pass, it sounded like eight grand all the way, no shift rpm change at all. Others, and i, told him his converter was junk, he said it cant be, it stalls 6000, right where i want it....
He finally took our advice. New converter, he went from 7.0s to 6.20s.
 
-
Back
Top