TF 190 Heads

-

B3RE

B³ Racing Engines
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
671
Reaction score
786
Location
USA
Apparently, the mods got fed up with the direction of the last Trick Flow thread and blocked further replies. So, let's a take a deep breath and get back to a relevant and helpful discussion for the Trick Flow heads, please.

I believe the heads are going to prove to be the best bang for the buck in a street, to mild race, application. The port cross section is not large enough to support high rpm in large cubic inch strokers, but we'll see what Trick Flow has up its sleeve for a competition port in the future.

I have a 416 build in process using the TF 190 head, but it won't be ready to dyno until at least late August. It is a backup motor for a Daytona drag car, so I have no idea when the customer would have timeslips. I'm sure by that time many others will have results that show the potential of the heads.

Anyone planning to attend the All Chrysler Nationals at Carlisle this year can see the small block Trick Flow heads, and purchase them at a "show special" deal. The same thing applies for those looking for the big block 240 and 270 heads. I'll be at locations A9-A10, so stop by to check them out.

I tried to get at least a prototype of the small block manifold for display this year, but no luck. It would have been nice to get a look at the port shape and design, but according to Trick Flow, they changed foundries and the manifold may not be available for a while. Even the big block manifolds are on backorder because of the change. Apparently, the old foundry wasn't getting something right. They sure know how to keep us hungry for more, lol.
 
First of all thanks for taking the time to post here, I know with your business it can take away time from making money. That said, maybe you can avoid a bunch of phone calls/emails the you have to answer giving the same information. So, I personally have a few questions since my engine is at the machine shop getting checked out now, and getting heads are in the near future. I know that you already make a correction kit for the TF's, is that kit for the PRW rockers, or other options. Also, will the PRW rockers allow for pushrod oiling on a Magnum engine. It was touched on in the other thread, but no definitive answer.
 
What’s the hp target for that bracket build?
He would like 600, but I would like to see a little more. Maybe 615-620. 12.5ish to one with a solid roller.
 
First of all thanks for taking the time to post here, I know with your business it can take away time from making money. That said, maybe you can avoid a bunch of phone calls/emails the you have to answer giving the same information. So, I personally have a few questions since my engine is at the machine shop getting checked out now, and getting heads are in the near future. I know that you already make a correction kit for the TF's, is that kit for the PRW rockers, or other options. Also, will the PRW rockers allow for pushrod oiling on a Magnum engine. It was touched on in the other thread, but no definitive answer.
I appreciate your consideration for my time. Thank you.
I can make the corrections for just about any rocker, and thankfully, the TF heads don't need very much. However, the PRW rockers fit the heads very well, and allow pushrod oiling for Magnum applications. I wouldn't rush to do pushrod oiling on an LA block because the lifters could push too much oil to the top end, unless the lifter bores were bushed.
 
I appreciate your consideration for my time. Thank you.
I can make the corrections for just about any rocker, and thankfully, the TF heads don't need very much. However, the PRW rockers fit the heads very well, and allow pushrod oiling for Magnum applications. I wouldn't rush to do pushrod oiling on an LA block because the lifters could push too much oil to the top end, unless the lifter bores were bushed.

Well that opens up another issue for me, I have a transition era Magnum block, so I can go either way. If I use the pushrod oiling, should I then block the oil passage for the shaft mounted rocker?
 
Well that opens up another issue for me, I have a transition era Magnum block, so I can go either way. If I use the pushrod oiling, should I then block the oil passage for the shaft mounted rocker?
Yes, it's as simple as clocking #2 and 4 cam bearing so the holes dont align, mark the location of the main feed. Drill a new feed hole from the mains to the cam, deburr, and then install the bearing. Or, tap the deck for a 1/16 NPT flush pipe plug and leave the bearing alone.
 
I appreciate your consideration for my time. Thank you.
I can make the corrections for just about any rocker, and thankfully, the TF heads don't need very much. However, the PRW rockers fit the heads very well, and allow pushrod oiling for Magnum applications. I wouldn't rush to do pushrod oiling on an LA block because the lifters could push too much oil to the top end, unless the lifter bores were bushed.
I have the Hughes 1.6: 1 aluminum rockers on my cast iron heads. I was wondering if you had any experience with these rockers on aluminum heads? I've heard several engine builders talking about comp, PRW, Harland Sharp, ect..
I was wondering about geometry as they seemed to have bolted right on stock heads without any need for correction..
I guess what I'm asking is if you think they would be worth trying on the new trick flow heads or should I just add the cost of those as well? And like stated before thank you for your time if you get a chance...
 
I have the Hughes 1.6: 1 aluminum rockers on my cast iron heads. I was wondering if you had any experience with these rockers on aluminum heads? I've heard several engine builders talking about comp, PRW, Harland Sharp, ect..
I was wondering about geometry as they seemed to have bolted right on stock heads without any need for correction..
I guess what I'm asking is if you think they would be worth trying on the new trick flow heads or should I just add the cost of those as well? And like stated before thank you for your time if you get a chance...
Yep, I have experience with them. As far as whether they "need correction", I suppose it depends on one's definition of geometry. If getting the pattern centered is the goal, that can be done by changing the length of the rocker, but the engine doesn't care whether the pattern is centered or not. It only cares what the valve is doing and the cam is dictating that through whatever the rocker geometry is, whether good or bad.

The rocker is not the issue for getting the rocker sweep minimized, it is the stand height, which means the head is the problem. Every roller rocker, including the Hughes rockers, will need that adjustment to the head, but the rocker design and net valve lift determines how much.

The rocker issue is in the pushrod side, and I've seen Hughes rockers drop a bunch of ratio when the other corrections are made. They aren't the only ones with the issue, but the angles and adjuster placement is so bad, that a lot of motion is lost from over arcing the adjuster at full lift. That leaves you with a choice. Do you A, leave it alone and have rpm limiting valvetrain instability and possible parts failure, or B, make the adjustment and lose some lift and higher lift duration, but have a reliable, stable valetrain? There is always C, which is pay extra for a properly designed custom rocker, make the shaft adjustment, and have the best of both worlds.

From my perspective, on a relatively low budget build, the best answer is B, because the valvetrain will be stable, and I've never had a motor noticeably lose power from loss of lift. My own dyno testing showed a power increase from increased rpm capability.

Sorry if I got a little of track here, but I wanted be informative to anyone reading. The older Hughes rockers were pretty short, so they may not fit as well, but the newer small block rockers I've dealt with are made by HS and are quite a bit longer. Regardless, they can be made to work. It just might take some manipulation.
 
Can you post up a good picture of the short-side of a TrickFlow head looking in from the valve. Thanks
 
Yep, I have experience with them. As far as whether they "need correction", I suppose it depends on one's definition of geometry. If getting the pattern centered is the goal, that can be done by changing the length of the rocker, but the engine doesn't care whether the pattern is centered or not. It only cares what the valve is doing and the cam is dictating that through whatever the rocker geometry is, whether good or bad.

The rocker is not the issue for getting the rocker sweep minimized, it is the stand height, which means the head is the problem. Every roller rocker, including the Hughes rockers, will need that adjustment to the head, but the rocker design and net valve lift determines how much.

The rocker issue is in the pushrod side, and I've seen Hughes rockers drop a bunch of ratio when the other corrections are made. They aren't the only ones with the issue, but the angles and adjuster placement is so bad, that a lot of motion is lost from over arcing the adjuster at full lift. That leaves you with a choice. Do you A, leave it alone and have rpm limiting valvetrain instability and possible parts failure, or B, make the adjustment and lose some lift and higher lift duration, but have a reliable, stable valetrain? There is always C, which is pay extra for a properly designed custom rocker, make the shaft adjustment, and have the best of both worlds.

From my perspective, on a relatively low budget build, the best answer is B, because the valvetrain will be stable, and I've never had a motor noticeably lose power from loss of lift. My own dyno testing showed a power increase from increased rpm capability.

Sorry if I got a little of track here, but I wanted be informative to anyone reading. The older Hughes rockers were pretty short, so they may not fit as well, but the newer small block rockers I've dealt with are made by HS and are quite a bit longer. Regardless, they can be made to work. It just might take some manipulation.



Thanks Mike. I send everyone who will to your web site to read your tech articles. I wish every mopar magazine would pick them and print them.

Maybe FABO would let you post them somewhere on the forum as a sticky.

The information in those articles is priceless.
 
Another question Mike.

Of the available off the shelf rockers, which are the best as far as not losing lift when corrected. And what brand is the worst.

TIA
 
Thanks Mike. I send everyone who will to your web site to read your tech articles. I wish every mopar magazine would pick them and print them.

Maybe FABO would let you post them somewhere on the forum as a sticky.

The information in those articles is priceless.
Thanks yellow rose as for helping me Making a decision on Picking up those roller rockers from Jerry . As Per your suggestion I did go on b3re website And read all 4 Tech articles on the geometry which were really informative Mike my question is to Mike yellow rose said that there was a geometry correction kit and I see nothing on your website about it do you have that in stock I will probably call you tomorrow to find out the price on it thank you.
Gary
 
Can you post up a good picture of the short-side of a TrickFlow head looking in from the valve. Thanks
It would have to be after Carlisle. I've got a lot to get done in the next few days, but I could get some after I get done with the show.
 
Another question Mike.

Of the available off the shelf rockers, which are the best as far as not losing lift when corrected. And what brand is the worst.

TIA
The aluminum rockers with the ball adjusters seem to be worse than the steel rockers with cup adjusters. I haven't been able to check every rocker out there, b UT that seems to be the trend.
 
Thanks yellow rose as for helping me Making a decision on Picking up those roller rockers from Jerry . As Per your suggestion I did go on b3re website And read all 4 Tech articles on the geometry which were really informative Mike my question is to Mike yellow rose said that there was a geometry correction kit and I see nothing on your website about it do you have that in stock I will probably call you tomorrow to find out the price on it thank you.
Gary
Every kit is custom made to your engine specs, so no, there aren't any in stock. I would have to get some info from you and make the kit, so there is a short manufacturing lead time.
 
Apparently, the mods got fed up with the direction of the last Trick Flow thread and blocked further replies. So, let's a take a deep breath and get back to a relevant and helpful discussion for the Trick Flow heads, please.

I believe the heads are going to prove to be the best bang for the buck in a street, to mild race, application. The port cross section is not large enough to support high rpm in large cubic inch strokers, but we'll see what Trick Flow has up its sleeve for a competition port in the future.

I have a 416 build in process using the TF 190 head, but it won't be ready to dyno until at least late August. It is a backup motor for a Daytona drag car, so I have no idea when the customer would have timeslips. I'm sure by that time many others will have results that show the potential of the heads.

Anyone planning to attend the All Chrysler Nationals at Carlisle this year can see the small block Trick Flow heads, and purchase them at a "show special" deal. The same thing applies for those looking for the big block 240 and 270 heads. I'll be at locations A9-A10, so stop by to check them out.

I tried to get at least a prototype of the small block manifold for display this year, but no luck. It would have been nice to get a look at the port shape and design, but according to Trick Flow, they changed foundries and the manifold may not be available for a while. Even the big block manifolds are on backorder because of the change. Apparently, the old foundry wasn't getting something right. They sure know how to keep us hungry for more, lol.


Will the 273 style rocker arms work with these heads?
 
Will the 273 style rocker arms work with these heads?
Not without a lot of work. It's a performance head, designed for a performance rocker, not an aluminum copy of a stock head like many others.
 
Not without a lot of work. It's a performance head, designed for a performance rocker, not an aluminum copy of a stock head like many others.

Thanks, what is the best bang for the buck rocker arms that will work?
 
Thanks, what is the best bang for the buck rocker arms that will work?
I like a bushed steel rocker for most street or street/strip applications, and use a lot of the PRW rockers because they have multiple ratios vs. Comp. They are far better imo, than the pricey aluminum rockers recommended for these heads. As with any rocker, they need a little adjustment to the stand height for proper geometry.

Contact me if you want a bolt on deal that is correct, and hassle free.
 
I like a bushed steel rocker for most street or street/strip applications, and use a lot of the PRW rockers because they have multiple ratios vs. Comp. They are far better imo, than the pricey aluminum rockers recommended for these heads. As with any rocker, they need a little adjustment to the stand height for proper geometry.

Contact me if you want a bolt on deal that is correct, and hassle free.
Since we're kind of waiting for more data to come in on these heads I had a semi related question? Very related to Geometry.
Have you ever ran into a situation where you didn't need to shim the shafts off their pedestals?
 
Since we're kind of waiting for more data to come in on these heads I had a semi related question? Very related to Geometry.
Have you ever ran into a situation where you didn't need to shim the shafts off their pedestals?
With a roller rocker, believe it or not, no. The stand position is copied from the factory on most aftermarket cylinder heads, which is engineered for a stock rocker, stock valve, stock cam, etc. The roller rockers have different geometry, and need to be moved.

There is one exception. I had a guy put shorter valves in a TF 190 head because he needed a super duty valve for twin turbos and couldn't get the same length TF uses. He was within .010" of correct, so we left it alone. I have never had an ootb head that didn't need adjustment using a roller rocker.
 
With a roller rocker, believe it or not, no. The stand position is copied from the factory on most aftermarket cylinder heads, which is engineered for a stock rocker, stock valve, stock cam, etc. The roller rockers have different geometry, and need to be moved.

There is one exception. I had a guy put shorter valves in a TF 190 head because he needed a super duty valve for twin turbos and couldn't get the same length TF uses. He was within .010" of correct, so we left it alone. I have never had an ootb head that didn't need adjustment using a roller rocker.
The question came from me having 596 stock heads and 1.6:1 Hughes aluminum rrockers. I do have the shim kit, but everything seemed to drop on nicely. In the center of the valve stem with a very small sweep? Just did seem a little too easy? I guess because before and after I've seen a lot of talk about correcting geometry and that seemingly didn't happen to me? Or it did and I haven't got it yet? I originally had the engine set up at a machine shop but they were using the 273 rockers that I provided them and I switched out the Rockers..
LOL voice commands I had to go back and correct some stuff LOL
 
The question came from me having 596 stock heads and 1.6:1 Hughes aluminum rrockers. I do have the shim kit, but everything seemed to drop on nicely. In the center of the valve stem with a very small sweep? Just did seem a little too easy? I guess because before and after I've seen a lot of talk about correcting geometry and that seemingly didn't happen to me? Or it did and I haven't got it yet? I originally had the engine set up at a machine shop but they were using the 273 rockers that I provided them and I switched out the Rockers..
LOL voice commands I had to go back and correct some stuff LOL
The only way to know for sure, is to give me some specs from your motor so I can do the math. Email me requesting the instructions, and I'll send them to you. I'll be on vacation next week, so it may be the following week until I can reply.
 
-
Back
Top