HotRod Mag 408 build w/TrickFlow heads NEW

-
It would be interesting to see them test a 950HP on the dual plane then swap to a victor or a TF single plane. I'd be willing to bet a single plane wouldn't hurt the torque numbers at all.
 
flyfish said:
Too funny, I was thinking the same thing! I was looking at those thinking "those look WAY fatter than my 1 3/4 headers Headman Hustlers.
Click to expand...

Sad thing is I doubt they helped this build look any better--probably the opposite. J.Rob
 
An good commercial for
Trick Flow
Race Tech
Hooker
Comp Cams
Edelbrock
Holley
MSD
Taylor
Lucas Oil
Milodon
Design Engineering
Scat
and Hot Rod Magazine
 
ir3333 said:
An good commercial for
Trick Flow
Race Tech
Hooker
Comp Cams
Edelbrock
Holley
MSD
Taylor
Lucas Oil
Milodon
Design Engineering
Scat
and Hot Rod Magazine
Click to expand...
That's what magazine articles are about, at the end of it. They don't make much money off the hard copy or subscription. It's the advertisers that bring in the bacon. Thus, you need to read these articles with a grain of salt. Some are actually good and straightforward transfer of knowledge, others are pure commercialism and simply a way to mention the vendor's name in a favorable light.
 
Its a valid point on the cam bearings. I don't know the magic cutoff point but the use of needle bearings is in fact driven by high spring loads.


If the headers aren't 1-3/4, what are they?
 
My buddy sent me the link to this the other day and my first thought after seeing a solid roller was that's kind of lame. But after looking closer at the specs and overall build I changed my mind to that's pretty good for a street engine that can be used in a 4x4.

Why go solid roller and use such a conservative cam?, my guess is they wanted a roller but didn't want to deal with hydraulic lifters so they used a mild/non aggressive (for a solid roller) cam for the street.

My view on it is it's pretty impressive to take an out of the box head and make over 500hp with those parts/limitations.
 
Last edited:
I feel you could push up against those numbers with a good flat tappet procomp / Edelbrock headed build fairly easily
 
K.O. SWINGER said:
I feel you could push up against those numbers with a good flat tappet procomp / Edelbrock headed build fairly easily
Click to expand...
I actually agree, but only swap the trickflows on the above hot rod build for a set of out of the box edelbrocks or speedmasters and it wont even make 500hp.
 
A solid makes complete sense. If it were a hydraulic roller, no one would bat an eyelash at it. So using a solid is the exact same except it gets rid of the blasphemy of the hydraulic part. And I'd consider a .380 lobe (I'm assuming a 1.5 rocker) to be approaching the limit of a flat tappet for a reliable, long life engine. I agree, the intake a carb are shaky. But I also recognize that Mazzolini knows his stuff.
 
lead69 said:
I actually agree, but only swap the trickflows on the above hot rod build for a set of out of the box edelbrocks or speedmasters and it wont even make 500hp.
Click to expand...
nice build but it just seems like an underachiever to me at least $2,000 worth of modifications for 50 horse? I guess what I'm trying to say is strokers with lightly ported ebrock style heads have been dancing around 500 horsepower plus even with flat tap at camshafts for what 15 years, so solid roller motor with what is considered some of the best la style heads with stock rocker arm assemblies to come down the line it's going to take quite a bit more than that for me to say yeah that's the way you do it.
 
Last edited:
K.O. SWINGER said:
nice build but it just seems like an underachiever to me at least $2,000 worth of modifications for 50 horse? I guess what I'm trying to say is strokers with lightly ported ebrock style heads have been dancing around 500 horsepower plus even with flat tap at camshafts for what 15 years, so solid roller motor with what is considered some of the best la style heads with stock rocker arm assemblies to come down the line it's going to take quite a bit more than that for me to say yeah that's the way you do it.
Click to expand...
I would have done it allot differently but only the customer can say if it is a value or not, if he wanted more I'm sure Bob would have built it.

I just look at it for what it is and am grateful that trickflow bothered to build a head with quality parts that out of the box will make 500hp with a mild combo and 600hp with good stuff. Pretty versatile head with no mods required.
 
gregcon said:
Its a valid point on the cam bearings. I don't know the magic cutoff point but the use of needle bearings is in fact driven by high spring loads.


If the headers aren't 1-3/4, what are they?
Click to expand...


Hooker 5303 1.875 headers.

I ran 340 on the seat and almost 900 over the nose depending on lift and never killed a cam bearing IF the idle oil pressure is 40 minimum.
 
While I don’t feel that this build does much to showcase those heads....... all things considered, they’re still probably what I would have used.
The price differential between those and the alternatives, especially if upgrading to roller cam hardware, makes the TF heads still a pretty attractive option.
 
justinp61 said:
It would be interesting to see them test a 950HP on the dual plane then swap to a victor or a TF single plane. I'd be willing to bet a single plane wouldn't hurt the torque numbers at all.
Click to expand...
i'll give an answer next week my 426 stroker is going on the dyno with a victor replacing the ported air-gap and 13cc dish pistons replacing the 23cc dish pistons should do better just cause the victor intake , it made 510 hp 560 tq with the air gap , so that 408 beats my 426 , but is that dyno calibrated properly ? those numbers sound high for that combo , mine had 2 inch headers bigger cam and an 850 holley on it made less hp and 40lbs more torque . i just never trust those magazine numbers
 
A dyno is a tool best used for A-B comparisons for the engine and the changes made. Not a dyno vs dyno.
As long as the operator is good with the calibration when he tests, it is what it is. And comparable to another dyno it is not. It should (key word there) be in the same ball park. A 40 hp or lbs difference is a lot. Assume it is the same dyno that this engine is being tested on. A different engine can easily dyno this difference with the machining talents & exact parts used.

I don’t put a lot of faith in what anybody’s dyno reads. To many variables.
 
i believe I will have a set of the TF190’s at my shop next week.

Looking forward to giving them the once over.
 
I actually saw that article and read it with great interest as it is somewhat similar to my 408 build. I'll share here just for clarity - I'm at 10.5 CR with a SFT cam (251/256@050, .557"/.568", 108 LSA, 104 CL) with mildly ported Eddys, Super Victor, 850 DP Holley, and Hooker 1-7/8" headers. Identical torque to the magazine at 3500 rpm - 503 #-ft. My torque peak rpm was higher - roughly 4600-4700 rpm at ~530 #-ft and power about 10 more than the magazine's at similar rpms. I got just about what I was expecting when I picked out parts so I was happy. (As noted above, every dyno is obviously different so I can't vouch for that but it's what I got.)

Magazines and dyno numbers aside - they are just potentials. The proof will be when we get warm weather and I can get the Demon on the street and to the track and see what it means. 8" Treemaster TC....should be fun! I just have to keep climbing out of the rabbit hole......
 
yellow rose said:
Interestingly, every single time Brûlé is involved with a SBM dyno test and they use his dyno headers they always get the header size wrong. That is NOT a 1.750 diameter header. It never was.

Either they can’t read a tape measure or a dial caliper, or they have forgotten what size they really are, but that’s not a 1.750 diameter header.

Probably the 5th or 6th time I’ve seen that. Maybe I should send an email to Westech and tell them to grab a tape and get the size correct so the reader doesn’t get misled any more than usual by these articles.
Click to expand...
Steve Brûlé didn’t write the article. Steven Rupp did. Send the email to him. Brule knows what size header he’s using.
 
PRH said:
i believe I will have a set of the TF190’s at my shop next week.

Looking forward to giving them the once over.
Click to expand...

If you cc any of the chambers while you have them, please post the results here somewhere. I am curious how close they are to the advertised numbers, for purposes of compression ratio planning.

Thanks. Bob.
 
rumblefish360 said:
A dyno is a tool best used for A-B comparisons for the engine and the changes made. Not a dyno vs dyno.
As long as the operator is good with the calibration when he tests, it is what it is. And comparable to another dyno it is not. It should (key word there) be in the same ball park. A 40 hp or lbs difference is a lot. Assume it is the same dyno that this engine is being tested on. A different engine can easily dyno this difference with the machining talents & exact parts used.

I don’t put a lot of faith in what anybody’s dyno reads. To many variables.
Click to expand...
well I trust the dyno and operator where my engine is , he never gives or gets inflated numbers to sell crap . the numbers get the expected results at the track it is what it is , he tests what people bring in , no corporate sponsors expecting or paying for inflated results to sell more parts
PRH said:
i believe I will have a set of the TF190’s at my shop next week.

Looking forward to giving them the once over.
Click to expand...
will be waiting to see what you think of them might buy a set for my 340 build if they are all they advertise to be
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top