That flow curve is better than mine, but still weaker in the middle than it could be. Any idea what the port volume and throat size are?I attached the flow data for mine. I had originally planned them for a mild cammed, 408 stroker truck engine, but that plan has changed. Currently thinking about a new engine for my Duster. I have the heads and a hyd roller, thinking I would use parts I already have. I could build a 360 or a 408, I have cranks and rods for either, but would need new pistons. Have been leaning towards the 360. That is all in the future though, who knows what I'll really do!
View attachment 1716206548
TF & Speedmaster Flow Tests
- Thread starter Earlie A
- Start date
-
Larger valve? Throat is 93% on the 2.02 on mine.
The intake throat size on even a bare Speedmaster head is on the large size. To large no, but a hair larger than they should be. These heads and Edelbrock or ProMax. Heads shine with a 2.055 valve but again that after being ported.
PRH
Well-Known Member
I dragged this over from the SBM flow number thread.
I didn’t cc the runner.
This particular set did not get any cnc work in the chambers…….they were as cast.
CNC’d SM head-
OOTB vs valve job with back cut valve, and minor blend-
28” test pressure, 4” bore:
A-OOTB
B-Valve job
Intake ports:
Lift———A/B
.100— 64/67
.200—126/132
.300—166/191
.400—206/232
.500—242/262
.600—271/275
.700—284/281
Exhaust ports:
Lift—— A/B
.100— 49/55
.200— 95/102
.300—132/137
.400—163/170
.500—179/188
.600—187/192
.700—190/194
I didn’t cc the runner.
This particular set did not get any cnc work in the chambers…….they were as cast.
CNC’d SM head-
OOTB vs valve job with back cut valve, and minor blend-
28” test pressure, 4” bore:
A-OOTB
B-Valve job
Intake ports:
Lift———A/B
.100— 64/67
.200—126/132
.300—166/191
.400—206/232
.500—242/262
.600—271/275
.700—284/281
Exhaust ports:
Lift—— A/B
.100— 49/55
.200— 95/102
.300—132/137
.400—163/170
.500—179/188
.600—187/192
.700—190/194
One thing I’ve learned as I get better and better results out of these heads. As much as I like a burr finish, and hate using sanding rolls, the shortside is so much easier to finish blend with a sanding roll. I can see the radius so much better and get the shapes right.
I don't think I'll ever use shortside and easier in the same sentence. They are tough no matter what you use.
I had some success with an 8" long piece of cloth backed paper rolled up like a cartridge roll and stuck completely through the port. Then use both hands in push/pull fashion. Honestly though, I should never use the term success when referring to my short sides either.
It all comes down to shapes and shaping. At 350-380 fps airspeed you have to help guide the air so it can make use of the area you give it. Think past the head coming in and going out.
I don't have a way to measure port volume, but they are advertised as 190 cc. I'll try to measure the throat size tomorrow (if I don't forget).
Tractor supply for a cc flask and a piece of lexan or plexiglass from Amazon. Probably get the cc flask from there too.
Easier yet to use
I measured the chambers when I got them, they were 66 to 67 cc's. The diff probably has more to do with my backyard methods that actual differences.
I have 60 and 10 cc syringes and a piece of plexiglass that is a little too thin.
I've spent a little more time with the TF head on the bench, and while I know these are a good OOTB head, they are still a hot mess. I am very surprised they flow 280-290 cfm. There is turbulence almost everywhere except right down the center of the port. Along the walls of both sides of the bowl there are wide areas of ZERO flow. And my experience has been that when the pitot is stable at 0.0, the flow is usually reversed. CFM readings are unstable, ranging from 275-305 cfm. Depression is hard to control - bounces around about 1" H2O. The ports still need a little massaging to be right.
The PRP is very intrusive on these heads and I think it's the source of lots of the problems. There is also precious little metal to work with at the PRP. The head bolt bulge is also a bit of an issue.
The PRP is very intrusive on these heads and I think it's the source of lots of the problems. There is also precious little metal to work with at the PRP. The head bolt bulge is also a bit of an issue.
B3422w5
Well-Known Member
Have yet to hear of anybody running the TF heads who has made any impressive passes at the track with them.
Like I said earlier one of my TrickFlow ports were so turbulent I couldn’t even Flow an intake on it for a customer. The next port was only 290 cfm but was at least calm enough to test flow an intake. It still didn’t give good results but I don’t make a cent flow testing so I can’t waste a whole day moving to different ports trying to find a good one. I’ll fix it sometime
Newbomb Turk
Well-Known Member
Take the head bolt bulge out. If it doesn’t have oil you can leave it open. If it’s a bolt that oil comes through you can tube it.
Dartswinger70
Well-Known Member
Thanks! I had heard or seen similar. Right now in my parts stash I have 1 set of X and 2 set of J's . I am a street cruiser guy so I am ok with the respective flow stats. I wouldnt mind a set of aluminum heads if they are bolt on but buying them then sending them out to me adds up. Does anybody know whats up with Edelbrock heads? they used to be a thing also. I suppose the price is up now though.
PRH
Well-Known Member
I’m surprised that by now there have been no reported dyno shoot-outs between the TF’s and some of the other offerings.
Like when EM did the test between stock/stealth/Ede/TF240’s.
You could do stock, SM, Ede, TF190.
Only, instead of using a basically stock short block, use something like a 10-10.5:1 stroker with a decent sized cam in it, and an intake/carb that would keep up.
Fundamentally I’m a fan of the TF190, but I’ve never used them on anything myself.
I don’t look at them as an alternative to an offset rocker race oriented head.
If they made 575hp, straight ootb, on a pretty basic(although somewhat rowdy) combo……I’d say they are doing what I’d expect out of them.
Certainly, that level of performance is achievable out of reworked Ede/SM heads, but that route requires more effort from the end user than selecting “add to cart” from summit’s site.
Like when EM did the test between stock/stealth/Ede/TF240’s.
You could do stock, SM, Ede, TF190.
Only, instead of using a basically stock short block, use something like a 10-10.5:1 stroker with a decent sized cam in it, and an intake/carb that would keep up.
Fundamentally I’m a fan of the TF190, but I’ve never used them on anything myself.
I don’t look at them as an alternative to an offset rocker race oriented head.
If they made 575hp, straight ootb, on a pretty basic(although somewhat rowdy) combo……I’d say they are doing what I’d expect out of them.
Certainly, that level of performance is achievable out of reworked Ede/SM heads, but that route requires more effort from the end user than selecting “add to cart” from summit’s site.
Pretty useless test stacking a 1190.00 head (733.00
On sale) against a cnc’d 2200.00 head.
On sale) against a cnc’d 2200.00 head.
PRH
Well-Known Member
How would you propose they devise a test to show what you get for the added expense of the cnc ported head?
Just as with flow tests, if the tests aren’t conducted back to back, it’s not truly an apples to apples test.
Just as with flow tests, if the tests aren’t conducted back to back, it’s not truly an apples to apples test.
-
