edelbrock heads

-
Did you read the Madison's article link that has the dyno tests?
 
L4staero said:
I recently used a set of eddies dated Nov 2014. Tried to pull the valves out and they were all jammed in the guides. Sent them to my machinist who honed the guides, machined the warped decks and did a valve job as several valve seats werent concentric. However i was expecting this as its pretty normal for out of the box heads to be all over the place.

Could have run them as they were but didnt want guides that are flogged out in 20k miles and lost power from leaking valves
Click to expand...

If the valve seals were on ...they are hard to pull out...without the valve seals they come out pretty easy...that is my experience...

Have run several sets out the box...
 
70aarcuda said:
If the valve seals were on ...they are hard to pull out...without the valve seals they come out pretty easy...that is my experience...
Click to expand...
We noticed that too with the seals .... they are very snug and it took some fooling with them to see that was just the seals. But we also had a couple of guides with small burrs in them where the valves were still tight in the guides even with the tip of the valve stem below the seals. Not sure if they would have worked out by themselves. Either way, it was minor.
 
rumblefish360 said:
Did you read the Madison's article link that has the dyno tests?
Click to expand...

The hotrod.com article? I just read it and it confirms my suspicions that there is no measurable difference from a power stand point, everything else being equal and just changing the head material.

I found it interesting the difference in power at 110° vrs 185° water temps.
 
Quite some time ago (years) i read a comparative test with identical small block chevy castings in both aluminum and iron using the same engine.I believe the iron headed
dyno pulls were about 7 or 8 hp higher
....aluminum heads were just hitting the market but that was just one test.I'm sure this argument will rage on!
 
70aarcuda said:
If the valve seals were on ...they are hard to pull out...without the valve seals they come out pretty easy...that is my experience...

Have run several sets out the box...
Click to expand...

We pulled the seals and rechecked and they were definitely the guides too tight.

Im sure they would have ran just fine but its best they are machined properly before use
 
justin
I think the proof is evident to anyone successfully running al heads with 11.2/1 Scr or better and cams in the 235* +/- 13* range, and a minimum running temp of 200*F, and power timing of 32* to 36*,and on 87E10.
I doubt anyone would try that with iron.
I can offer no other reason than that the chambers are cool enough to not detonate.So I jump to the Scr, as the most likely answer.
As to a power difference, I can't say, and don't care. Whatever mines got, it's plenty enough for me.
 
justinp61 said:
I found it interesting the difference in power at 110° vrs 185° water temps.
Click to expand...
I am willing to be that it is due to less heating of the intake charge, keeping it denser. Maybe we should start the idea that running dry ice in the water jacket helps increase power....LOL!
 
...and then there is the camp that says better combustion from a hot intake because the fuel will vaporize and mix better with intake air where a cold intake manifold will leave fuel droplets with poor vaporization and no mixing.
...don't polish your intake ports,leave them rough.
 
AJ/FormS said:
justin
I think the proof is evident to anyone successfully running al heads with 11.2/1 Scr or better and cams in the 235* +/- 13* range, and a minimum running temp of 200*F, and power timing of 32* to 36*,and on 87E10.
I doubt anyone would try that with iron.
I can offer no other reason than that the chambers are cool enough to not detonate.So I jump to the Scr, as the most likely answer.
As to a power difference, I can't say, and don't care. Whatever mines got, it's plenty enough for me.
Click to expand...


I'm thinking it has more to do with efficient combustion chambers and being able to run tight quench. With the older heads it's almost impossible to achieve any level of quench with out dome pistons. Then you defeat reasoning behind quench.
 
justinp61 said:
The hotrod.com article? I just read it and it confirms my suspicions that there is no measurable difference from a power stand point, everything else being equal and just changing the head material.

I found it interesting the difference in power at 110° vrs 185° water temps.
Click to expand...

Yea man, interesting article. The bottom line on head material is really what ever you want to run. A 50lbs. weight brake, while a help, on a non racing street car in is nothing. The real key is how well they fit the needs of the power plants intended goal. Few iron heads will flow what an aftermarket aluminum head will.
 
Rumblefish,
You are correct about aluminum heads flowing better than factory iron but now you can get aftermarket iron heads that out flow the aluminum edelbrocks for 2/3 cost. EQ heads out flow Edelbrocks by quite a bit. They will outflow ported Edelbrocks right out of the box.
 
magnummopar said:
Rumblefish,
You are correct about aluminum heads flowing better than factory iron but now you can get aftermarket iron heads that out flow the aluminum edelbrocks for 2/3 cost. EQ heads out flow Edelbrocks by quite a bit. They will outflow ported Edelbrocks right out of the box.
Click to expand...

So these EQ heads flow almost 300 right out of the box? Sorry, I don't buy it.
 
magnummopar said:
Rumblefish,
You are correct about aluminum heads flowing better than factory iron but now you can get aftermarket iron heads that out flow the aluminum edelbrocks for 2/3 cost. EQ heads out flow Edelbrocks by quite a bit. They will outflow ported Edelbrocks right out of the box.
Click to expand...
This is totally misleading. With the EQ's with 2.02" valves, they flow slightly less than the stock Edelbrock Performers except at .400" lift. They are very close in flows across the board with the Edelbrocks having a negligible edge.

See here:
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/...biB3LyAiTEEiIFN0eWxlIEludGFrZQ==&partid=27826

and here:
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/mc/cylinder-heads/chrysler/performer-rpm-sb.shtml

With a full spring kit, the EQ's with 2.02' valves and their installed valve spring kit run around $1421 for a pair, including shipping here to VA. With the Autozone discounts that you can get, the Edelbrock 60779's complete are around $1422, shipped, and with 5% sales tax paid. This is HARDLY 2/3 the cost.....but you do have to time your purchase to catch the AZ discounts to get this Edelbrock pricing; the Hughes EQ prices are everyday prices.
 
nm9stheham said:
This is totally misleading. With the EQ's with 2.02" valves, they flow slightly less than the stock Edelbrock Performers except at .400" lift. They are very close in flows across the board with the Edelbrocks having a negligible edge.

See here:
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/...biB3LyAiTEEiIFN0eWxlIEludGFrZQ==&partid=27826

and here:
http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive/mc/cylinder-heads/chrysler/performer-rpm-sb.shtml

With a full spring kit, the EQ's with 2.02' valves and their installed valve spring kit run around $1421 for a pair, including shipping here to VA. With the Autozone discounts that you can get, the Edelbrock 60779's complete are around $1422, shipped, and with 5% sales tax paid. This is HARDLY 2/3 the cost.....but you do have to time your purchase to catch the AZ discounts to get this Edelbrock pricing; the Hughes EQ prices are everyday prices.
Click to expand...

How is it misleading, according to Hughes ... http://www.hughesengines.com/TechArticles/1headflowchartscomparisons.php

Edelbrock stock flow at .500" is 240 for Magnum with 2.02" intake

EQ heads stock flow at .500" is 252 for Magnum with 1.92" Intake

EQ heads flow at .500" is 277 with 2.02" Intake

EQ heads with upgraded springs $1000 outflow Edelbrock for $1500. If you are talking about 2.02 EQ then that is more money but over 275 flow, clearly more than the Edelbrocks. I wouldnt dream of running Edelbrocks without a complete teardown, redo guides and valve job. Edelbrock burned me twice on brand new heads that wouldnt hold water to check chamber volume, tight guides etc...add $350+ for that. I was also using "today " prices for all heads, I think Jegs or scummit for Edelbrock price.
 
justinp61 said:
So these EQ heads flow almost 300 right out of the box? Sorry, I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

I was using Hughes flow bench numbers for their Stage I port on the Edelbrocks, and comparing it to stock EQ(over 250). Not sure where you got 300 but with very little work, the EQ's will flow 277.
 
From Hughes site their prepped magnum heads that run to 277 cfm @.500 cost $2149 which is a lot more than a standard LA edelbrock which again according to Hughes flow 253 @ .500 out of the box.

Again according to hughes the standard EQ head at .500 flow with a 1.92 227 cfm these will cost you $1156
http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/...24=&searchmode=partnumber&page=1&partid=25702

With a 2.02 @.500 they will flow 247 cfm which again from hughes fitted with their approapriate 1110 spring kit will cost you $1330

All getting pretty close in price to LA eddy heads
 
EQs are not a better head than the RPMs. They are similar and cheaper than RPMs. In terms of getting a set of heads to my quality expectation, and bolted to a running engine, EQs end up about $300 cheaper, and a solid 50lbs heavier than RPMs. At this level they would flow pretty much the same (minimal cleanup as part of the valve job), and the EQs are limited in cam size by available springs, and need more pricey rockers where the RPMs in most applications are not. Two separate intended uses IMO. EQs are for mild or stock Magnum replacement. RPMS could be that, or more depending on the prep.
 
Exactly! Choose your weapon wisely & appropriately.

There is nothing wrong with an iron head IMO so long as it fits the need and it is what you want to use. Running to aluminum isn't always the answer or best fit. Cost is your call/expense.
 
magnummopar said:
I was using Hughes flow bench numbers for their Stage I port on the Edelbrocks, and comparing it to stock EQ(over 250). Not sure where you got 300 but with very little work, the EQ's will flow 277.
Click to expand...
That 'very little work' appears to cost about $800.....As said, those numbers are not for the basic EQ heads that are in the same price ballpark as the OOTB Edelbrock RPM Performers.... you're comparing the upper end, highly ported EQ's that cost a lot more like the 2.055" intakes or the Stealths.

And please show us where you can get ANY pair of EQ's WITH springs for $1000.....it's not like the rest of us can't read the Hughes website. Now if you CAN show me where to get them for that price, I will join the stampede! LOL
 
magnummopar said:
I was using Hughes flow bench numbers for their Stage I port on the Edelbrocks, and comparing it to stock EQ(over 250). Not sure where you got 300 but with very little work, the EQ's will flow 277.
Click to expand...


Plenty of head porters can get mid high 290s out of a Edelbrock with some claiming closer to 310. My Edelbrocks went 294 with a 2.02 valve, when they were freshened I had a 2.055 valve put in them. Curtis Boggs did the port work.

As mentioned the EQ head is good for it's intended purpose, but it doesn't have the HP potential that Edelbrocks do.
 
justinp61 said:
Plenty of head porters can get mid high 290s out of a Edelbrock with some claiming closer to 310. My Edelbrocks went 294 with a 2.02 valve, when they were freshened I had a 2.055 valve put in them. Curtis Boggs did the port work.

As mentioned the EQ head is good for it's intended purpose, but it doesn't have the HP potential that Edelbrocks do.
Click to expand...

My RHS Heads flow 294 too. And Usually cost less to port being Iron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top