Trick Flow heads, etc.

-
R

Russ Knight

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2023
Messages
74
Reaction score
52
Location
North Florida
Hello everyone. A few things here. First, I have a 71 340 and will be swapping it into a 2004 Dakota. I'm considering purchasing Trick Flow heads and was wondering if anyone here is running them and if so what is your opinion of them. I will be running a six pack and was also wondering how well the six pack intake will match the heads and will I need to port it to match the heads?

For information purposes this will be my setup:

71 340 stock block. Will bore it to whatever minimum is required to clean it up, thinking .010. Engine will be line bored and decked. Using the stock forged crank and rods, going to forged flat top pistons. Rotating assembly will be balanced. Howard's 713175-10 (272 int./278 exh. - 0.525 int./0.525 exh.) hydraulic roller with Howards roller lifters. Using either 1.5 or 1.6 Harland Sharp rockers. Truck has 3.92 posi 8 1/4 rear end. If it breaks, I'll go to a Ford 9". Transmission will be a built 727. Lot's of challenges with this swap. Instrumentation / wiring is going to be a big one. Painless does not offer anything, nether does Dakota. Headers will be another. Not sure if 360 headers will work, but that's the direction I'm leaning. Hopefully I won't need to have a custom set built. Anyway, input on the Trick Flow heads will be appreciated.
 
Are there no issues with emission compliance there in Florida? You're allowed to modify newer vehicles this way?
 
Trick flow heads would work fine with your described build but unless your camshaft is over 575 lift you'll have no real advantage over a set of Edelbrock style heads. The smaller combustion chambers of a trick flow will raise your compression a small bit but there a lot of head for a 340 cubic engine unless you're going to really turn it up.Imo. as far as adapting it to the six pack manifold there should be no real problems.
 
Why use the 340 block?

I’d sell the 340 short block and buy a magnum block from a mid 90’s / early 2000’s dodge truck. Which has the side motor mounts cast into the block which will make installing into the truck easier unless your motor plate mounting.
 
01 face 4.gif


Where do you get the distorted impression that a motorist can drive a car without a license and registration? Every state in the union requires license plates on vehicles that are driven on public roads and the people that drive them are required to carry a license to operate them when they are driving.
I'm not some goody-goody law abiding guy and I'm certainly not against modifying my cars.
I do know that according to Federal law, you are not allowed to remove emission control devices anywhere. Now, the fact that most states do not enforce that law renders the argument somewhat moot but if they wanted to enforce it, they could.
There are several states that joined in with the CA lunacy in regards to phasing out of new gasoline and diesel car sales in favor of EVs so it is absolutely possible that some states have similar emission control laws.
My question was a simple one and you made a mountain out a molehill.
 
Scody21 said:
Why use the 340 block?

I’d sell the 340 short block and buy a magnum block from a mid 90’s / early 2000’s dodge truck. Which has the side motor mounts cast into the block which will make installing into the truck easier unless your motor plate mounting.
Click to expand...
I have the 340 and purchased motor mounts and trans mount to install it, plus I have the six pack setup for the 340.
 
Kern Dog said:
View attachment 1716413182

Where do you get the distorted impression that a motorist can drive a car without a license and registration? Every state in the union requires license plates on vehicles that are driven on public roads and the people that drive them are required to carry a license to operate them when they are driving.
I'm not some goody-goody law abiding guy and I'm certainly not against modifying my cars.
I do know that according to Federal law, you are not allowed to remove emission control devices anywhere. Now, the fact that most states do not enforce that law renders the argument somewhat moot but if they wanted to enforce it, they could.
There are several states that joined in with the CA lunacy in regards to phasing out of new gasoline and diesel car sales in favor of EVs so it is absolutely possible that some states have similar emission control laws.
My question was a simple one and you made a mountain out a molehill.
Click to expand...
My guess he's talking about "Freeman of the land".
 
Kern Dog said:
View attachment 1716413182

Where do you get the distorted impression that a motorist can drive a car without a license and registration? Every state in the union requires license plates on vehicles that are driven on public roads and the people that drive them are required to carry a license to operate them when they are driving.
I'm not some goody-goody law abiding guy and I'm certainly not against modifying my cars.
I do know that according to Federal law, you are not allowed to remove emission control devices anywhere. Now, the fact that most states do not enforce that law renders the argument somewhat moot but if they wanted to enforce it, they could.
There are several states that joined in with the CA lunacy in regards to phasing out of new gasoline and diesel car sales in favor of EVs so it is absolutely possible that some states have similar emission control laws.
My question was a simple one and you made a mountain out a molehill.
Click to expand...

It's called being a "Sovereign citizen" And some of the funniest **** you will ever see is them reciting their BS to a cop and getting dragged out of a car window :) they use a thing called "Blacks law dictionary" as their own thing and it gets funnier the more you hear from it :)

P.S. to any overambitious mod.. we are talking law not politics :)

 
Russ Knight said:
Hello everyone. A few things here. First, I have a 71 340 and will be swapping it into a 2004 Dakota. I'm considering purchasing Trick Flow heads and was wondering if anyone here is running them and if so what is your opinion of them. I will be running a six pack and was also wondering how well the six pack intake will match the heads and will I need to port it to match the heads?

For information purposes this will be my setup:

71 340 stock block. Will bore it to whatever minimum is required to clean it up, thinking .010. Engine will be line bored and decked. Using the stock forged crank and rods, going to forged flat top pistons. Rotating assembly will be balanced. Howard's 713175-10 (272 int./278 exh. - 0.525 int./0.525 exh.) hydraulic roller with Howards roller lifters. Using either 1.5 or 1.6 Harland Sharp rockers. Truck has 3.92 posi 8 1/4 rear end. If it breaks, I'll go to a Ford 9". Transmission will be a built 727. Lot's of challenges with this swap. Instrumentation / wiring is going to be a big one. Painless does not offer anything, nether does Dakota. Headers will be another. Not sure if 360 headers will work, but that's the direction I'm leaning. Hopefully I won't need to have a custom set built. Anyway, input on the Trick Flow heads will be appreciated.
Click to expand...

I run trick flows... honestly there is no reason for you to get them over the edelbrocks or other brands... with TF's by the time you buy the proper rockers and **** you are over 3k into them.. your intake will fit fine, there is no reason to port match it...

I went with TFs cause i like to waste money :) I hate edelbrock due to quality issues and bad RMA practices.. so i would probably look at someone else... or find a used set cheap.
 
I have used Trick Flow heads in 2 builds with no problem. I have another set to use on another project. I had B3 do the rocker arm geometry correction.

20230721_140343.jpg


20201123_163845.jpg
 
Icetech said:
It's called being a "Sovereign citizen" And some of the funniest **** you will ever see is them reciting their BS to a cop and getting dragged out of a car window :) they use a thing called "Blacks law dictionary" as their own thing and it gets funnier the more you hear from it :)

P.S. to any overambitious mod.. we are talking law not politics :)

Click to expand...

I use to have a buddy that was all about it, talk non stop about it.

Seen a bunch of those videos, funny ****, turn a simple stop into dumb charges then still try to continue that **** in court :)
 
273 said:
I use to have a buddy that was all about it, talk non stop about it.

Seen a bunch of those videos, funny ****, turn a simple stop into dumb charges then still try to continue that **** in court :)
Click to expand...
ohhh watching them try that **** on a judge is one of the great pleasures in life :) I don't know much in life cause i am a moron.. but the one thing i know for sure... Never piss of a judge :)
 
Dart Frog said:
Trick flow heads would work fine with your described build but unless your camshaft is over 575 lift you'll have no real advantage over a set of Edelbrock style heads. The smaller combustion chambers of a trick flow will raise your compression a small bit but there a lot of head for a 340 cubic engine unless you're going to really turn it up.Imo. as far as adapting it to the six pack manifold there should be no real problems.
Click to expand...

There's more to power comparing two heads than just looking at flow curves and saying I have x camshaft lift.

If you're comparing ootb heads, the TF are hands down better and offer way better combo potential.
 
What power and rpm range you going for ?

To me TFs are for when your looking to make 500-550 hp, Edelbrocks 425-475 hp.
But even if your shooting for say 450 hp would TF's with a smaller cam be better way ?
 
Icetech said:
No you aren't...
"No, recreational cannabis is not currently legal in Florida. While the state legalized medical cannabis in 2016 through a constitutional amendment, recreational use remains illegal."
Click to expand...
I'm not a weed head, so yes I'm free. However, Trulieve has bought off our Legislature here, so it's just a matter of time.
 
Mean416 said:
There's more to power comparing two heads than just looking at flow curves and saying I have x camshaft lift.

If you're comparing ootb heads, the TF are hands down better and offer way better combo potential.
Click to expand...
Let me make it a little more clear for you. In a 340 cubic inch motor the amount of flow needed can easily be supplied by a Edelbrock / speedmaster head. Like I said and I'll stand by it unless you are really turning it up and have the cam lift available to take advantage of the trick flow head gains will be small it's been proven time and time again. But if you're talking out of the box yes trick flows have a higher power capability everybody knows that so thanks Captain obvious.
 
Dart Frog said:
Let me make it a little more clear for you. In a 340 cubic inch motor the amount of flow needed can easily be supplied by a Edelbrock / speedmaster head. Like I said and I'll stand by it unless you are really turning it up and have the cam lift available to take advantage of the trick flow head gains will be small it's been proven time and time again. But if you're talking out of the box yes trick flows have a higher power capability everybody knows that so thanks Captain obvious.
Click to expand...

Lol. Thank you ohh great one for making it so abundantly clear.

I would venture that, for any given performance oriented camshaft, the ootb TF head would make more power, everywhere in the rpm range, than the ootb eddy head, on any 318/340/360/stroker combo.
 
Dart Frog said:
Trick flow heads would work fine with your described build but unless your camshaft is over 575 lift you'll have no real advantage over a set of Edelbrock style heads. The smaller combustion chambers of a trick flow will raise your compression a small bit but there a lot of head for a 340 cubic engine unless you're going to really turn it up.Imo. as far as adapting it to the six pack manifold there should be no real problems.
Click to expand...


You got most of this correct except the part about the TF being on the big side for a 340.

The TF head is about the right size for a decent 273. It is too small for a well built 340 and for more CID than that it is grossly undersized.
 

As I respect your knowledge previous tests have shown that on a street strip 340 with a good compression ratio and a mechanical lift camshaft in the 500 to 550 range no significant gain will be made using a trick flow head on a 340 cubic inch motor over in Edelbrock La style head with a good valve job

Please show me a legitimate dyno test proving elsewhere anything more is just banter. I know performance ceiling on the trick flow head is much higher but it needs previously mentioned upgrades.
Newbomb Turk said:
You got most of this correct except the part about the TF being on the big side for a 340.

The TF head is about the right size for a decent 273. It is too small for a well built 340 and for more CID than that it is grossly undersized.
Click to expand...
 
273 said:
What power and rpm range you going for ?

To me TFs are for when your looking to make 500-550 hp, Edelbrocks 425-475 hp.
But even if your shooting for say 450 hp would TF's with a smaller cam be better way ?
Click to expand...
Yes given my choice I would still go with the trick flow heads if price was not an issue that being said you're looking at $2,000 difference in price if you include rocker arms. To me that's not chump change but if 450 hp or over is your goal trick flows would be a better option unless you already have Edelbrock style heads then porting might be a good route.
 
Dart Frog said:
As I respect your knowledge previous tests have shown that on a street strip 340 with a good compression ratio and a mechanical lift camshaft in the 500 to 550 range no significant gain will be made using a trick flow head on a 340 cubic inch motor over in Edelbrock La style head with a good valve job

Please show me a legitimate dyno test proving elsewhere anything more is just banter. I know performance ceiling on the trick flow head is much higher but it needs previously mentioned upgrades.
Click to expand...


Let go back to what I think you were saying (or were trying to say) first and then we can go from there and maybe learn something.

I took it you were saying that the TF head is on the “big” side for 340 inches so that’s what I based my post on. If that’s not what you were saying (or were trying to say ) then I apologize.

If that’s what you are saying, you are wrong. Let’s use the W2 head and port as an example.

When that head was released, they were designed and developed for roughly 340 inches and smaller for Modified Eliminator and Pro Stock back in that era.

The W2 is HUGE compared to ANY non offset rocker head and it’s not even close. Yet, it was for roughly 340 inches and less.

Drop the TF or any comparable head on 408 inches and it is grossly under headed. So the notion that any non offset rocker head is too big for anything over let’s just say 280 inches is just wrong.

Comparing the TF to any other comparable head is a different thing. If we look at the TF verses an Edelbrock verses any chicom head WITH THE SAME SIZE INTAKE VALVE you will see there is nary a pinch of **** difference in flow below ~.550 lift between all of them.

This is because of the curtain area and coefficient of flow or that valve size. You can play all kinds of tricks in the port and the with the valve job and not gain more than several CFM at low lifts.

It is physically not possible to move more air through the available curtain area of say a 2.02 valve at low lifts. You can use a bigger valve, but then you’d need to use a bigger valve in all the heads for the same comparison and you’d be right back to the same issue. They’d all be the same or so close it wouldn’t make one head even marginally better than any of the others.

Or you can use a steeper than 45 degree seat for much better efficiency but you’d need to do the same for all the other heads and you are back to square one.

As you correctly noted until the left is above .550, there isn’t a pinch of **** difference in any of these heads and so power will be so close that there isn’t a real difference.

Which is why you see me telling guys who want to make power to use as much lift as the valve gear will take because gaining air flow at low lifts, where the valve speed should be fast enough that in real time the valve should be moving way slower around max lift (where air flow is always greater than it is at say .400 lift and below) to make the most power.

You are correct in saying there isn’t any difference in power between all these heads at under .550 lift. None of those heads are too big for 340 inches though. Not even close.

That was the point of most of my post.

Also, it just blows my mind how guys build 400 plus inches and then choke the engine to death with a dual plane intake. And they just bolt them on and do zero porting.

It just makes zero sense, but all the “torque rules on the street” guys think that’s how it works.
 
I have them on my small block stroker, with a Sixpack. You may have to match intake ports a little if you want. I had to cut my intake to fit properly, but that can happen with any intake. Nice heads, retorgue your heads after a couple of heat cycles. Yeah, I know, do it anyway. Use green antifreeze and reverse osmosis water if you can, otherwise distilled. Green antifreeze, not looks like it's some modern looking antifreeze.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-
Back
Top Bottom