TF & Speedmaster Flow Tests

-
Earlie A said:
Do you guys have an opinion on the purpose of the vane?
Click to expand...
I don’t really have one.
Not without seeing what happens without it.

The only heads I see with any type of regularity that have the vane are AFR SBC heads.
The few I have bothered to flow have come up short compared to the advertised numbers(numbers back up at higher lifts).
Over on Speed Talk there was some discussion about the vanes, and as I recall Larry Meaux commented something to the effect of he usually removes them.

As I have commented before, “by looking at them”, I never would have thought the TF190 heads would flow what they do.
 
Last edited:
PRH said:
In its entirety?

It’s fine if you’d rather not say.
Click to expand...
Yes so far I've not touched it to get that power...I've also not build anything crazy with them...i.e. solid roller, high compression, etc...but I feel removing it using E85 may be proper...hopefully. I would love to try it but so far the power has been good leaving it in.
 
Brian Hafliger said:
I know for us, when we build a 408 hyd. roller deal, pump gas, I have to make changes to the intake porting on the TF head if we want more than 540HP. Those changes allow 575+ at a real 10.6:1 compression! And the port doesn't really end up flowing much more air...you have to remember the QUALITY of airflow is what makes power...I don't give a **** if the port flows 280 or 310...but it has to make power.
Click to expand...

Great point.
I know the Bloomer heads( on the bench they were flowed on) don’t show any really different numbers than the other heads being mentioned here.
But they make WAY more power and come ready to bolt on.
I have a hard time figuring out why anybody would by anything else in the factory bolt on head arena.
 
B3422w5 said:
Great point.
I know the Bloomer heads( on the bench they were flowed on) don’t show any really different numbers than the other heads being mentioned here.
But they make WAY more power and come ready to bolt on.
I have a hard time figuring out why anybody would by anything else in the factory bolt on head arena.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they are unobtainable? Not to mention not everyone may agree with your assessment of the bloomer head. I for one would rather try something else which is why I went with TF’s which I believe are the best out of the box street head.
 
-Boosted- said:
Maybe because they are unobtainable? Not to mention not everyone may agree with your assessment of the bloomer head. I for one would rather try something else which is why I went with TF’s which I believe are the best out of the box street head.
Click to expand...

Nothing to not agree with. They have proven to approach 700 horsepower based on track results.
At the end of the day, that is where the results matter.
On my personal street strip car i
have 1.5 years on them thus far. Flawless
Super high quality castings, exceptional finish work on the castings at a high end shop( BES/ Bischoffs).
Frankly, the Trick flow isn’t anywhere near as good a head.
And they aren’t unobtainable. Last time I talked to Rod there were 10 sets in the works. Wasn’t that long ago.
 
B3422w5 said:
Great point.
I know the Bloomer heads( on the bench they were flowed on) don’t show any really different numbers than the other heads being mentioned here.
But they make WAY more power and come ready to bolt on.
I have a hard time figuring out why anybody would by anything else in the factory bolt on head arena.
Click to expand...
I don't dispute that the bloomer heads are top notch for a std. port head and make more power but I don't consider them to be in the same category as the trickflow. They have larger intake port than most ootb intakes can be ported to, are roughly 1K more than trickflows and add the fact that trickflows do have improved rocker geometry make them a great hot street head. I think people lose sight of the fact that they are a true 500 plus hp bolt on street head for around 2k which is something only dreamed of a few years ago.
 
Last edited:
lead69 said:
I don't dispute that the bloomer heads are top notch for a std. port head and make more power but I don't consider them to be in the same category as the trickflow. They have a larger intakes port than most ootb intake can be ported to, are roughly 1K more than trickflows and add the fact that trickflows do have improved rocker geometry make them a great hot street head. I think people lose sight of the fact that they are a true 500 plus hp bolt on street head for around 2k which is something only dreamed of a few years ago.
Click to expand...

Mine work fine with a ported Victor junior intake.
They are about 500 more than a similar setup Trick flow. I paid to have mine milled, that is why they got up to 3k.
I have no issues using standard Harland Sharp rockers, same rockers I had on my Eddie heads.
I just think for the difference in power potential, the difference in money is negligible.
And the reliability certainly isn’t a concern, among other things these heads have completed drag week.
 
B3422w5 said:
Mine work fine with a ported Victor junior intake.
They are about 500 more than a similar setup Trick flow. I paid to have mine milled, that is why they got up to 3k.
I have no issues using standard Harland Sharp rockers, same rockers I had on my Eddie heads.
I just think for the difference in power potential, the difference in money is negligible.
And the reliability certainly isn’t a concern, among other things these heads have completed drag week.
Click to expand...
Cool, let’s get back to the discussion this thread is about. If I want to hear about bloomers, I’ll go find your post.
 
Earlie A said:
I'm no expert when it comes to putting combinations together, so hopefully some of the other guys will jump in and help with that. My experience with the heads is this - stock x or j with a 2.02 will flow 210-220. Stock j with 1.88 will do 190-195. Stock Speedmaster will flow 250ish. Factory CNC'd Speedmaster (mine were a disaster) flowed 266cfm. The TF is 290-295 on my bench. In my opinion, the TF are as close to bolt on ready as you can buy. The Speedmasters need help from a good machine shop. I'd stay away from the factory CNC'd Speedmasters.
Click to expand...
What specific problems did you have with the CNC Speedmaster heads? I have a set I haven't used yet. They did get a going over and flow test by a local shop. Everything looked good.
 
Yellow Duster said:
What specific problems did you have with the CNC Speedmaster heads? I have a set I haven't used yet. They did get a going over and flow test by a local shop. Everything looked good.
Click to expand...
The throat was 93% of the valve size but the valve job usually needs to be redone on these heads anyway. Port was 200cc and only flowed 266 cfm. A stock non-CNC port will flow about 250 cfm with a 170-175 cc volume. Mine will need a larger valve because of the throat size. With a larger valve it would probably be OK on a stroker, but I think it would be a dud on a street 340.
 
That's about what mine flowed. Have been thinking about putting them on a 360 with about 10.5 to 1 comp and a hyd roller cam, 234/238 .536/.540.
 
Yellow Duster said:
That's about what mine flowed. Have been thinking about putting them on a 360 with about 10.5 to 1 comp and a hyd roller cam, 234/238 .536/.540.
Click to expand...
Maybe some of the other guys can jump in here. I'm not going to pretend to be qualified to give advice. My concern would be the large 200cc port on a small(ish) 360 that may not turn high rpm. But it would probably be better than stock 1.88 valve heads.
 
Earlie A said:
Maybe some of the other guys can jump in here. I'm not going to pretend to be qualified to give advice. My concern would be the large 200cc port on a small(ish) 360 that may not turn high rpm. But it would probably be better than stock 1.88 valve heads.
Click to expand...
To me it's not necessarily the 200 cc it's that it only flows 266 cfm at that cc.
 
Earlie A said:
Maybe some of the other guys can jump in here. I'm not going to pretend to be qualified to give advice. My concern would be the large 200cc port on a small(ish) 360 that may not turn high rpm. But it would probably be better than stock 1.88 valve heads.
Click to expand...

If you use those formulas, but don't forget those formulas are based on 100% VE, engines above 100% need less rpm and or more cc.

A 360 with a 200 cc head = 7500 rpm
A 360 needs 330 cfm @ 7500 rpm
A 360 with a 161 cc head = 6000 rpm
A 360 needs 266 cfm @ 6000 rpm

The heads cfm and cc rpm requirement for a 360 is miles apart 6000 rpm vs 7500 rpm, even with a 408 would be miles apart just at lower rpms.

I'm sure the head will make power in between 6000 and 7500 probably around 6500 rpm with the right cam cr etc.. I don't think these engines are as sensitive as people try to make them out especially at lower efficiencies.

My guess 360 with an 1.20 lbs-ft per cid x .9 = 388.8 x 6500 / 5252 = 481 hp @ 6,500 rpm, 432 tq @ 5,300 rpm, max 360 with an 1.25 lbs-ft x .9 = 405 x 6500 / 5252 = 502 hp @ 6,500rpm, 450 tq @ 5,300 rpm.


  • Average_CSA = Port_Volume_CC / (Port_CenterLine_Length * 16.387)
  • MIN CSA = (Bore x Bore x Stroke x RPM x .00353) / 613.8 (.55 MACH)
  • Port_Volume_CC = Average_CSA * Port_CenterLine_Length * 16.387
  • Port_CenterLine_Length = Port_Volume_CC / ( Average_CSA *16.387 )
  • FPS = ( Flow_CFM * 2.4 ) / Average_CSA
  • Flow_CFM = Average_CSA * FPS * .4166667
  • Average_CSA = ( Flow_CFM * 2.4) / FPS
  • cfm demand = cid x rpm x .0009785 / # of cylinders
 
Last edited:
Here's some port velocities taken at the Apex of the SSR on the TF190 intake port. Port floor velocities are insane.

IMG_2373.jpg
 
I'll answer, but you should listen to others with more experience than me. I welcome the correction. I think in general for flow testing at 28", velocity over the SS floor of 350 is good, high 300s is borderline, 400 you're in trouble and 450 is insane. But it all depends on the port. A port with a 10 degree valve angle (and a high port) should be able to handle higher velocity over the short turn without separation than the 18 degree SBM. Hard to get low velocity over the SS in SBM running high cfm. Looks like TF did a pretty good job here.
 
Yellow Duster said:
What specific problems did you have with the CNC Speedmaster heads? I have a set I haven't used yet. They did get a going over and flow test by a local shop. Everything looked good.
Click to expand...
I had these tests in my computer anyway, so it was easy to print out. This illustrates my concern over my set of CNC SM heads. Hopefully yours are better. There are 4 heads compared against one another on the intake side. A stock Trick Flow 190 CNC ported. A stock Edelbrock RPM (not ported). A Speedmaster factory CNC ported. A stock 1973 Mopar 587 iron casting. All heads have 2.02 valves except the 587 which has 1.88 valve. The CFM graph shows the SM heads to be pretty good, but the velocity and port energy graphs show a different story. I believe the lower velocity and lower port energy would lead to sluggish performance at low rpm.

This graph shows how bad my set of CNC SM's are. With a good valve job the curves should be up there with the TF. It's baffling to me because it takes just as much time to run a bad CNC program as it does a good one.

IMG_2378.jpg


IMG_2379.jpg


IMG_2380.jpg
 
Earlie A said:
I had these tests in my computer anyway, so it was easy to print out. This illustrates my concern over my set of CNC SM heads. Hopefully yours are better. There are 4 heads compared against one another on the intake side. A stock Trick Flow 190 CNC ported. A stock Edelbrock RPM (not ported). A Speedmaster factory CNC ported. A stock 1973 Mopar 587 iron casting. All heads have 2.02 valves except the 587 which has 1.88 valve. The CFM graph shows the SM heads to be pretty good, but the velocity and port energy graphs show a different story. I believe the lower velocity and lower port energy would lead to sluggish performance at low rpm.

This graph shows how bad my set of CNC SM's are. With a good valve job the curves should be up there with the TF. It's baffling to me because it takes just as much time to run a bad CNC program as it does a good one.

View attachment 1716206541

View attachment 1716206542

View attachment 1716206543
Click to expand...
People must be putting these heads on non 408 non 7000 plus 340/360, wonder what there experiences are? Pretty bad cfm numbers for the size of the port, obviously ain't ideal but wonder if tolerable especially if you already own a set, I'd give it a try. (definitely wouldn't buy a set) Is there a fix to get the cfm up ? Like bigger valves or something ?
 
They are large port with a large throat. Maybe a 2.08 valve would bring them to life on a large motor. Maybe that's what SM was thinking? I don't know, but it's not an OOTB head. At least mine aren't.
 
273 said:
People must be putting these heads on non 408 non 7000 plus 340/360, wonder what there experiences are? Pretty bad cfm numbers for the size of the port, obviously ain't ideal but wonder if tolerable especially if you already own a set, I'd give it a try. (definitely wouldn't buy a set) Is there a fix to get the cfm up ? Like bigger valves or something ?
Click to expand...


If they didn’t scalp the shortside they are fixable but it’s a shame you have to pay twice.
 
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! :rolleyes:

SM Flow Data.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top