Anybody use EngineQuest cylinder heads?

-
The sad thing is, that I still haven't bought any heads. And, I now have two shortblocks that need heads...
 
Hmm. That 1110 spring should be sufficient for that cam. I'm guessing you were having valvetrain issues of some kind. The Eddy heads take a stud rocker. What rockers were you running on the EQ heads?

I had the 1110 springs on my Iron Ram heads with the 1.90 valves. Car went 11.70 at darn near 3400 lbs with a stock magnum shortblock. I have significant doubts that my car would have run bottom 11s by switching to the Edelbrock heads.

Granted, I was running the CH318B heads, with the LA style RPM Air Gap intake.
 
The rockers I was running were the stock magnum stuff. Until you try it don't doubt it. I was not trying to gain performance by changing to edelbrocks, the reason I switched was because I had problems with the valve guides on the iron rams and it smoked. I was told that the edelbrocks would not perform any better than those heads but I was tired of messing around and putting more money into iron heads so I just bought the eddeys and summit brand roller rockers mostly to save weight on that heavy old 74 duster. I was surprised by the performance gain myself. You might be surprised LXguy! I'm not running in the 11's but I'm running in Wyoming and Colorado 5000 feet of altitude. Mine is mid 12's here.
 
Been using Edelbrocks for over 6 years on 2 different engines will never go back to steel heads unless they're properly prepped W-2's...by the way why are we comparing steel heads to aluminum..you can't:dontknow::dontknow:
 
I just get tired of hearing the edelbrock bashing by people who have never tried them and will assume that these heads that they can afford will out perform the ones that they don't want to spend the money for. I have noticed that nobody will factor in the 58cc vs 62cc chamber and that 1/2 point of compression. That all by itself will make an increase in performance without any other change, even more of a gap than going from 1.92 to 2.02 valve. I have been through this on the ford sights too with my fox body running small block with AFR heads, lots of people claim other (cheaper) heads will perform with them because they don't want to spend the money on the AFR's.
 
Well, your car was smoking, had guide issues and wouldn't rev. I don't think that makes for a scientific comparison. I'm not saying your car isn't working better with the Edelbrocks, but I don't think the comparison is valid.

I also had valvetrain issues with the Iron Rams I got. Then I discovered the cam I used required longer pushrods, but I eventually got it sorted.

My Iron Ram heads measured between 58 and 59cc out of the box. I ran the skinny 318 style gaskets with these to try to overcome the stock Magnum pistons being .050 in the hole...

My cam was 224/230 and with the Iron Rams/Air Gap the best shift point was 6200 RPM.

I actually sent back a set of Edelbrocks to run the Iron Rams, based on the significantly higher flow numbers reported for the Iron Rams in the magazines and on Hughes' site. Personally, I'll take a higher flowing set of irons over aluminums any day.

Given the lower flow numbers of the Edelbrocks, I don't see my car having picked up ET based on the aluminumness of the heads. Especially .3-.4

I'm a user and fan of the AFR 165,185 and 205 heads on Ford 302/347 combos.

Unfortunately, Edelbrock isn't AFR. The Edelbrock Mopar (or Ford) heads aren't fit to carry the jock strap of the AFR Ford heads. Nobody fast runs Edelbrock heads on their Ford.

I sure wish you could get bolt-on heads that work like those for Small Block Mopar!
 
You believe specs you read on the internet and I'll believe what I see at the track. Yet another example of someone trying to convince me that I'm wrong and and you are the expert yet I have done the test and you refused too because you believe hype.
 
I'll believe 11.70s in August on an 8" tire and a 1.92 valve head, and a stock 80K mile shortblock. You can call it hype if you want.

I'll say to the OP, or anyone else, the EQ heads are pretty awesome. They're mega supercalifragilistic awesome when you consider how cheap they are.

Wish I hadn't sent back those magic Eddy heads. Could have probably run 10s.....
 
Tyrone, you revived a 3 year old thread about these things.

Hey, the ede heads worked for you. There were issues running the eq's that appear to never been solved. Whether that was an inherent issue or machine shop, don't know. Too much preload can kill the RPM on a hyd lifter as well. Who knows. EQ and stock rockers (usually never close to claimed ratio) to a set of ede's with alum rocker (likely a lot closer to claimed ratio or more)

Seen cars run well with both manufacturers heads. Many in here prefer the EQ/RHS head because they ran better than the ede's. Yours was opposite.

Enjoy your car.
 
11.70's is an impressive number for that set up. Too bad your tuning talent is warped by internet hype and forbidden truth. you wouldn't know because you make the claim without using the eddy's. Anyway you use your iron heads and I'll use my eddy's and maybe someday we will end up at the same track and that will expose the truth because there is too big of an elevation difference to measure by current #'s that we run.
 
Its like an agenda against edelbrock on the boards it seems. But then once in a while somebody comes on who has actually used them and has something positive to say. I have been research for parts for some time. Im not sure what heads I'm going to wind up with. For me it doesn't matter much I guess. Mainly a daily driver. So a couple tenths means nothing much to me. A little extra torque down low does. So probably go the eq or rhs route with small valves. But I don't know?
 
I'll taker the Iron rams for shipping costs. Will use them on my dirt track car.
 
LXguy said:
Well, your car was smoking, had guide issues and wouldn't rev. I don't think that makes for a scientific comparison. I'm not saying your car isn't working better with the Edelbrocks, but I don't think the comparison is valid.

I also had valvetrain issues with the Iron Rams I got. Then I discovered the cam I used required longer pushrods, but I eventually got it sorted.

My Iron Ram heads measured between 58 and 59cc out of the box. I ran the skinny 318 style gaskets with these to try to overcome the stock Magnum pistons being .050 in the hole...

My cam was 224/230 and with the Iron Rams/Air Gap the best shift point was 6200 RPM.

I actually sent back a set of Edelbrocks to run the Iron Rams, based on the significantly higher flow numbers reported for the Iron Rams in the magazines and on Hughes' site. Personally, I'll take a higher flowing set of irons over aluminums any day.

Given the lower flow numbers of the Edelbrocks, I don't see my car having picked up ET based on the aluminumness of the heads. Especially .3-.4

I'm a user and fan of the AFR 165,185 and 205 heads on Ford 302/347 combos.

Unfortunately, Edelbrock isn't AFR. The Edelbrock Mopar (or Ford) heads aren't fit to carry the jock strap of the AFR Ford heads. Nobody fast runs Edelbrock heads on their Ford.

I sure wish you could get bolt-on heads that work like those for Small Block Mopar!
Click to expand...

I have had the pleasure of driving a iroc camaro with AFR heads. Been on the car out of the box for years without problems. If they were offered for the Mopar I would of already bought them.
 
Ditto on the AFRs! I send them emails periodically hassling them to start making mopar heads. LOL

I don't think being "pro EQ" means being anti-Edelbrock.

I also think the RPM air gap is the best intake going for small block mopar, and as you can see from the performances listed above, the Edelbrock is a decent head.

I was just stoked that you can buy a set of Mopar heads for about $1K that are 11 second capable without getting out the carbide burrs.
 
LXguy said:
Ditto on the AFRs! I send them emails periodically hassling them to start making mopar heads. LOL

I don't think being "pro EQ" means being anti-Edelbrock.

I also think the RPM air gap is the best intake going for small block mopar, and as you can see from the performances listed above, the Edelbrock is a decent head.

I was just stoked that you can buy a set of Mopar heads for about $1K that are 11 second capable without getting out the carbide burrs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I more than likely will be going eq instead because of that and being able to use an LA style intake. They are 700 bucks for them complete from Midwest. I think that's the name of it. There in las Vegas and are a distributer only. They don't do work on anything they tell me. Bare or complete from eq.
 
running said:
Yeah, I more than likely will be going eq instead because of that and being able to use an LA style intake. They are 700 bucks for them complete from Midwest. I think that's the name of it. There in las Vegas and are a distributer only. They don't do work on anything they tell me. Bare or complete from eq.
Click to expand...
I just bought a bare head from them ($$ is tight so 1 at a time) A&A Midwest in Las Vegas. I'll post a pic of it soon. Eric Haugland (sp) there is a good guy to deal with. RR
 
Bought mine from Comp Products, two years ago, bare 1.92/1.62 castings .( 650.00 shipped ,to my door. Freight was 80.00 more from Hughes Products, hence they lost the sale.) Ordered SI valves, 1110 Hughes springs. The quality of EQ's ootb, impressed me more than the Eddy's with major core shift, I had to port.). Impressed for, bang for the buck. The AFR 165 302 heads I had, kicks the Eddy's quality, as well.
 
read about that exact issue in mopar magazine. compared eq-ch318a and eq-ch318b. the b heads allow for LA manifolds and broaden your selections. also eq puts more iron in the vulnerable places according to the article. on page 20 this months issue.
 
...maybe AFR got their **** together with the SBF stuff. This has been several years ago, but I bolted a set of AFR 185s down to a 331 stroker and with a mild Comp cam, it floated the valves anywhere north of about 5800. These heads were brand spanking new, OOTB, untouched. We had to pull the heads for an unrelated issue and the machine shop discovered they needed to be shaved .008" and the springs were too weak because AFR liked to use heavy valves. Both the shop owner and their head machinist said they'd seen at least 6 sets come in over that past year for the same thing. They both agreed the castings were great and the CNC program clearly worked, but when you put heavy valves with roller lifters over .500" lift, their springs fell woefully short of the requirements...and pretty much any decent SBF roller cam was over .500" lift and .230* @ 050"...the fact they needed to be shaved to clean up was just an isolated incident, but it only underscores the need to take even quality heads to a trusted machinist to verify everything.

just my .02...
 
txstang84 said:
...maybe AFR got their **** together with the SBF stuff. This has been several years ago, but I bolted a set of AFR 185s down to a 331 stroker and with a mild Comp cam, it floated the valves anywhere north of about 5800. These heads were brand spanking new, OOTB, untouched. We had to pull the heads for an unrelated issue and the machine shop discovered they needed to be shaved .008" and the springs were too weak because AFR liked to use heavy valves. Both the shop owner and their head machinist said they'd seen at least 6 sets come in over that past year for the same thing. They both agreed the castings were great and the CNC program clearly worked, but when you put heavy valves with roller lifters over .500" lift, their springs fell woefully short of the requirements...and pretty much any decent SBF roller cam was over .500" lift and .230* @ 050"...the fact they needed to be shaved to clean up was just an isolated incident, but it only underscores the need to take even quality heads to a trusted machinist to verify everything.

just my .02...
Click to expand...

Your last sentence, is pretty much any aftermarket head period ,TX Stang. Everything needs to match, to work correctly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top