Trick Flow small block heads

-
When you see a power curve like that Grays build has....... where the tq number is quite a bit higher than the hp number....... you know the motor peaked early....... which means it didnt have “enough” of something to allow the curve to hang on longer.
Whether that’s duration, lift, flow, carb, header....... or maybe it’s lacking a little of several of those factors.......something needs to be changed to allow that nice big tq number to either be moved up the scale........ or taper off at a much slower rate.

Most builds that make “impressive” power....... have noticeably more HP than TQ.......... because the tq curve is hanging on higher up.
 
PRH said:
When you see a power curve like that Grays build has....... where the tq number is quite a bit higher than the hp number....... you know the motor peaked early....... which means it didnt have “enough” of something to allow the curve to hang on longer.
Whether that’s duration, lift, flow, carb, header....... or maybe it’s lacking a little of several of those factors.......something needs to be changed to allow that nice big tq number to either be moved up the scale........ or taper off at a much slower rate.

Most builds that make “impressive” power....... have noticeably more HP than TQ.......... because the tq curve is hanging on higher up.
Click to expand...
Like a 230* cam that hangs in there to 6700..... LOL
 
The only platforms I can think of where a 230@.050 hyd cam might be long enough to where you could see a higher hp number than tq number would be an LS or G3........ or maybe a small ci SB with pretty good heads........ and if the valvetrain was stable enough to allow the necessary rpm to be reached before it became unstable.

I had a 360 on the dyno not too long ago...... small solid cam....... made peak tq@4800, peak hp@6200........ made 1.3 more peak hp than peak tq.

When the peak power occurs in the 5000’s(or lower), most of the time the hp peak will be less than the tq peak.
 
Last edited:
PRH said:
The only platforms I can think of where a 230@.050 hyd cam might be long enough to where you could see a higher hp number than tq number would be an LS or G3........ or maybe a small ci SB with pretty good heads........ and if the valvetrain was stable enough to allow the necessary rpm to be reached before it became unstable.
Click to expand...

Exactly right. That little 11 sec 318 i had with ported magnum RT heads was a good example. “Detuned it” with a 231/238 cam and it still would run 6500 making good power. I didn't run it that hard other than to see if it ET’ed better, but it was rock solid up there with friggin beehives
 
I don't think, like you all, that there has been a big enough cam to show the potential of them heads.
Now with that said, i'm going to put my porting helmet on and say it's going to take more them long duration and high lift to show the true potential.
How much the intake flow compared to the exhaust will predice a different overlap/duration and seat timing.(also reversion come into play here)(could act way different then the eddys)
What i'm saying is the smallest cam for a 408, displayed above, was choose from a off the shelf cam that Maybe eddys likes(just guessing here) and as there is more TF heads, matched to cams(trial and error/ learned)
There may be a lot more potential made for a small cam which will be lessons learned to apply to a bigger cam.
 
yellow rose said:
First off, those heads are TOO FING SMALL for 400 inches. Anyone that thinks they are too big has spent too much time burning the hippie lettuce.

Second, as I say all the time, you can't go by flow numbers. That engine would be 70-80 HP better with a set of W2 heads with nothing but a quality valve job.

The intake manifold was wrong. So was using EFI like that on that intake.

Again, if Grey says that's what it makes, I believe him.

But to say those heads are too big is *** backwards and full blown retarded.
Click to expand...


I’m sorry but I get so tired of hearing these heads (TrickFlow) are to small for 400 cubic inches. My Edelbrock heads cc’d out at 191 intake runner on the heads I ported and ran 9.74 on a worn out block (3 rebuilds and in need of its 4th) at Keystone in the middle of summer. This isn’t an East coast super track. Don’t get me wrong a W2 is a great head but it’s not the wholly grail.
 
pittsburghracer said:
I’m sorry but I get so tired of hearing these heads (TrickFlow) are to small for 400 cubic inches. My Edelbrock heads cc’d out at 191 intake runner on the heads I ported and ran 9.74 on a worn out block (3 rebuilds and in need of its 4th) at Keystone in the middle of summer. This isn’t an East coast super track. Don’t get me wrong a W2 is a great head but it’s not the wholly grail.
Click to expand...


That doesn't mean the head is big enough. The original architecture of that head was designed in the early 1960's, with mid 300 inch displacement in mind that spent most of its RPM below 3000.

When the W2 head was developed, a big displacement. Small block was 360 inches.

The head is small for 400 inches. It's small for 340 inches if you want to make power over 7k.
 
I could argue all night but that would do nothing. A stock Edelbrock head is 170cc and a TrickFlow Head is 190cc with other changes done as it’s not a carbon copy of an Edelbrock head like others. I would love to see what that head is capable of in the right hands with a 2.08 valve. Goodnight
 
yellow rose said:
That doesn't mean the head is big enough. The original architecture of that head was designed in the early 1960's, with mid 300 inch displacement in mind that spent most of its RPM below 3000.

When the W2 head was developed, a big displacement. Small block was 360 inches.

The head is small for 400 inches. It's small for 340 inches if you want to make power over 7k.
Click to expand...
Your full of crap!!
 
pittsburghracer said:
I could argue all night but that would do nothing. A stock Edelbrock head is 170cc and a TrickFlow Head is 190cc with other changes done as it’s not a carbon copy of an Edelbrock head like others. I would love to see what that head is capable of in the right hands with a 2.08 valve. Goodnight
Click to expand...


Sure could. Don't look at the CC volume. Look at the cross section.

As I said many times by all the guys who said it flows 300...it flows 300 and I said so what?

I don't know who it was above that said they think that head is "too big" and I'm saying it's not too big. It's too small in cross section.
Flow and cross section.

Good night.
 
I go away for a little while, and holy crap.:popcorn: There are some things to remember here. This is the first set of heads that Grey's has used. They used a combination that has been tried and true for a lot of different people. Their observation was that they did not make HP as something like ported Eddy's with similar flow number with THIS COMBINATION. Trick Flow wants to see dyno sheets because several shops are noticing the same thing. These are suppose to be STREET heads, so they should work with a cam this size. That said, we are entering an age where old combinations may not work anymore. Watch the Engine Masters show where they throw a single plane on a Ford 351W with a cam like the one tested at Grey's, and they pick up 20 HP, and made 450 HP. Their conclusion is that the heads that they used flowed well enough that the intake was the restriction in that combo. That could be the case here. Who really knows what is really going to make these work, this is all theory until enough heads get tested to know what, or what does not work. Grey's advise was to hold off buying a set until they figure out what is going on. It seems like solid advise, that is why my engine is at his shop.
 
Last edited:
j par said:
Good night...
Click to expand...


That's what I thought. You are talking put of your ***.

If you ask me nice, I'll post up pictures of a head that shows what kind of cross section you need to make power, on 345 inches.

Not that you would know what you are looking at, but others might.
 
yellow rose said:
Sure could. Don't look at the CC volume. Look at the cross section.

As I said many times by all the guys who said it flows 300...it flows 300 and I said so what?

I don't know who it was above that said they think that head is "too big" and I'm saying it's not too big. It's too small in cross section.
Flow and cross section.

Good night.
Click to expand...


Honestly I have never measured cross section on any of the heads I have ported but I kinda know by now where I want to head to for area and port volume while staying off the floor on a head like a small block Edelbrock except on the short turn for shaping purposes. Darren Morgan told me what air speed to aim for on both the intake and exhaust so that tells me where to head next for a better flowing head. Ok goodnight again.
 
yellow rose said:
That's what I thought. You are talking put of your ***.

If you ask me nice, I'll post up pictures of a head that shows what kind of cross section you need to make power, on 345 inches.

Not that you would know what you are looking at, but others might.
Click to expand...
Okay I'm asking you nicely, post a time slip...
 
I think until we see these heads on more combinations most talk is just that, talk and conjecture.

My guess is otb they'll make about the same power as a decent set of ported Edelbrocks and fully ported less power than W-5's and Indys. Move the push rod, install a 2.10-.15" intake and who knows.
 
DrEamer said:
I go away for a little while, and holy crap.:popcorn: There are some things to remember here. This is the first set of heads that Grey's has used. They used a combination that has been tried and true for a lot of different people. Their observation was that they did not make HP as something like ported Eddy's with similar flow number with THIS COMBINATION. Trick Flow wants to see dyno sheets because several shops are noticing the same thing. These are suppose to be STREET heads, so they should work with a cam this size. That said, we are entering an age where old combinations may not work anymore. Watch the Engine Masters show where they throw a single plane on a Ford 351W with a cam like the one tested at Grey's, and they pick up 20 HP, and made 450 HP. Their conclusion is that the heads that they used flowed well enough that the intake was the restriction in that combo. That could be the case here. Who really knows what is really going to make these work, this is all theory until enough heads get tested to know what, or what does not work. Grey's advise was to hold off buying a set until they figure out what is going on. It seems like solid advise, that is why my engine is at his shop.
Click to expand...
One could actually learn from that show.
justinp61 said:
I think until we see these heads on more combinations most talk is just that, talk and conjecture.

My guess is otb they'll make about the same power as a decent set of ported Edelbrocks and fully ported less power than W-5's and Indys. Move the push rod, install a 2.10-.15" intake and who knows.
Click to expand...
I’m kind of digging that point of view. This head kind of reminds me of the Brodix B1-BA-MC. Big flow numbers with low output numbers seems to be the consensus though I personally don’t know.
 
justinp61 said:
I think until we see these heads on more combinations most talk is just that, talk and conjecture.

My guess is otb they'll make about the same power as a decent set of ported Edelbrocks and fully ported less power than W-5's and Indys. Move the push rod, install a 2.10-.15" intake and who knows.
Click to expand...



With that being said which I agree with it’s nice for guys to be able to purchase a ready to go head with quality parts off the shelf, for a few hundred more, do a quick check over, and bolt them on. We all know that Edelbrock heads quality has gone downhill rapidity
 
Imo, telling buyers to hold off buying these heads is a bit of a knee jerk reaction.
Do we think that bolting on some ootb RPM type heads is going to make more power on that exact build?
The ootb price difference is $480........ which isn’t quite enough to cover the cost of prepping and a stage 1 type bowl job.
So, the way I see it...... as long as the TF’s don’t make less power than the RPMs on that type of build, they’re still i viable option.
It’s certainly possible the RPM’s are the better choice for a build like that....... and I’m sure at some point, that test will happen.......... then the question will get answered.

If “I” were building a combo like that, and the expected power was clearly under 500hp(based on the mild cam, dual plane intake, etc), I’d use prepped RPM’s. Not because I think they’re better, but because for basically the same price as the TF’s cost....... I’d make more $$$ selling and prepping the RPM heads.

If the target was solidly in the mid/upper 500hp level...... and the cam/manifold combo could be sized accordingly....... then I’d use the TF heads.
 
Last edited:
Why would somebody even spend the money on a decent head like that and then run a pimple of a cam is beyond me.

.575 lift MINIMUM!!! 248+@.050!!!
the cam ran was nothing but a 10 lb. back scratcher.

And btw way, chryslers do great will smaller port volume... people mostly only know building with small port volume when it comes to wedge stuff.... that's why when the BIG ports come over... they dont how to play with them. Long rod, dwell time, velocity ...it works.
185-190cc
 
pittsburghracer said:
if you go by TrickFlows numbers they say 281@.500 and 248@.400 lift. by time you take pushrod deflection and the dreaded small block pushrod angle how long do you think that "dinky" cam is spending at .500 lift. Not very long.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seem most people talk about flow at max lift but how long is the valve open at max lift. About a microsecond? Nanosecond? What's more important is flow where the valve is open the longest, sometimes referred to as "area under the curve." It's interesting that the racer boys at Mopar would recommend a .750 lift cam for a big block with stock heads when the heads stopped flowing at .670! It was because the heads didn't' stall after .670 lift and the big cam provided a lot more duration in the area where the heads flowed the best.
 
dart_68 said:
I agree. It seem most people talk about flow at max lift/
What's more important is flow where the valve is open the longest, sometimes referred to as "area under the curve.”
Click to expand...
And like the “Price is Right” TV show, the bells ring like crazy, we have a winner!

Ow what did grand pop call that again?
80% rule?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top