EQ Iron Ram heads?

-
dusted72

dusted72

Thanks Hemiroid!!!!
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
3,171
Reaction score
358
Location
Triangle, V.A.
Ok I know there are a few guys running these what are your opinions on them? I have been bitten by the mod bug and I am considering getting new heads. I saw on ebay for $500 each shipped that they would accept a .600 lift and have 2.02/1.62 stainless valves too. What kinda numbers are being achieved with these. Or can you justify the $600plus more for RHS heads?
 
I bought the EQ magnum heads from the ebay vendor. They werent machined properly on the valve seats. As in they were rough ground and not concentric. I pulled the valves to do some bowl porting and i found these terrible looking seats. Also some guides were so tight the valves would barely slide out. Cost me another $400 to get a valve job and the guides reamed. If i was to do it again i would still buy the EQ heads but from hughes. They are great heads. My 318 made 400 hp with light bowl port and 222/228 hyd roller.
Then again i maybe would buy a set of brians prepped rhs'. Hope that is helpful
 
dusted72 said:
Ok I know there are a few guys running these what are your opinions on them? I have been bitten by the mod bug and I am considering getting new heads. I saw on ebay for $500 each shipped that they would accept a .600 lift and have 2.02/1.62 stainless valves too. What kinda numbers are being achieved with these. Or can you justify the $600plus more for RHS heads?
Click to expand...

You need to call me. Eq heads are the best!! I can give you numbers but I can give you results. J.Rob
 
Looks like a nice crack near the spark plug hole.. maybe 2. Then add in the expensive rocker stands and hardware, since this set has the cast stands milled down,, not looking like such a hot deal to me. But what do I know?

Are the EQ heads priced each or per pair?
 
dusted72 said:
Ok I know there are a few guys running these what are your opinions on them? I have been bitten by the mod bug and I am considering getting new heads. I saw on ebay for $500 each shipped that they would accept a .600 lift and have 2.02/1.62 stainless valves too. What kinda numbers are being achieved with these. Or can you justify the $600plus more for RHS heads?
Click to expand...

Get these. http://www.hughesengines.com/Index/...OSk=&level1=Q3lsaW5kZXIgSGVhZHM=&partid=25738

They are literally ready to bolt-on.
 
Have any of you talked to Brian on this, just curious, i'm sure he has done the EQs & i know he did up a set of RHSs here recently, they flow right around 270 if i remember, I can't see the RHSs only flowing low 200 #s, even stock with the 1.92 valve, according to the flow #s out there in stock form, the RHSs flow in the 240s, The EQs in the 220s, I sure know my car ran great with the stock RHSs, the cam i ran was so small they couldn't show there true potential.
 
JoeDust451 said:
Have any of you talked to Brian on this, just curious, i'm sure he has done the EQs & i know he did up a set of RHSs here recently, they flow right around 270 if i remember, I can't see the RHSs only flowing low 200 #s, even stock with the 1.92 valve, according to the flow #s out there in stock form, the RHSs flow in the 240s, The EQs in the 220s, I sure know my car ran great with the stock RHSs, the cam i ran was so small they couldn't show there true potential.
Click to expand...

Yes I believe Brian does get 270 or so out of them, Brian knows how to do them for sure. You are incorrect about the EQ's flowing only 220--my bench is always less than what I see floating around on the 'net and I always see 231-233cfm. Drop some 2.02"s or bigger and voila! 245-247cfm, I CNC shape the bowl and boom! 270-273 cfm, etc.... I think the RHS's will respond the same way. BTW. J.Rob
 
EQ's usually run around 230-barely 240 with a 1.92. Much like an RHS head with a similarly sized valve.
 
RAMM said:
Yes I believe Brian does get 270 or so out of them, Brian knows how to do them for sure. You are incorrect about the EQ's flowing only 220--my bench is always less than what I see floating around on the 'net and I always see 231-233cfm. Drop some 2.02"s or bigger and voila! 245-247cfm, I CNC shape the bowl and boom! 270-273 cfm, etc.... I think the RHS's will respond the same way. BTW. J.Rob
Click to expand...


Not that I'm a big user of the magnum replacements, but your EQ results seem a little over the top, and doesn't jive with the limited results I've experienced. I understand different benches are seldom in total agreement. The EQs are a very well done factory replacement, but suffer from the same limitations of the RHS heads. Those being limited spring choice and narrow pinch. No matter how good the bowl is, the pinch can't support that without some work, and even then, I've never seen them exceed 280-285.
 
moper said:
Not that I'm a big user of the magnum replacements, but your EQ results seem a little over the top, and doesn't jive with the limited results I've experienced. I understand different benches are seldom in total agreement. The EQs are a very well done factory replacement, but suffer from the same limitations of the RHS heads. Those being limited spring choice and narrow pinch. No matter how good the bowl is, the pinch can't support that without some work, and even then, I've never seen them exceed 280-285.
Click to expand...

The set of EQ's I ran on my 2011 EngineMaster's entry, were the guinea pigs that got all of this started. With a fair amount of hand porting and S.S. work I have a set of EQ Magnums that flow between 292cfm and 2 of the 8 intake ports flow a bonafide 300 cfm @ 28"'s on a 4.060" bore. The CNC bowl shape I have developed does in fact net 270cfm with no pinch work at all. The pinch and S.S. and rocker stud boss does work in a weird harmony that defies what you might think at first glance. I love these heads as they are torque producing monsters. I'm not knocking the RHS's in fact I am going to apply the same techniques to them and I think they will respond in kind. J.Rob
 
Well, it's not really my deal to ever port these. I just spec what I feel is a better and more cost effective head. I have seen OOTB ones make 461hp in a 365" Modified tour engine. They do look nice, but the numbers you're showing far exceed what I'd expect, or have seen. I have little faith in the successful EM projects being any more than dyno mules. But, I'd be most interested in seeing others who have gotten results like that in more real-world application. What does a set of the CNC heads assembled, ready to run go for? What lift can they take?
 
moper said:
Well, it's not really my deal to ever port these. I just spec what I feel is a better and more cost effective head. I have seen OOTB ones make 461hp in a 365" Modified tour engine. They do look nice, but the numbers you're showing far exceed what I'd expect, or have seen. I have little faith in the successful EM projects being any more than dyno mules. But, I'd be most interested in seeing others who have gotten results like that in more real-world application. What does a set of the CNC heads assembled, ready to run go for? What lift can they take?
Click to expand...


What numbers are you skeptical of? Flow or hp/tq? As far as EMC engines being nothing more than a dyno mule, I can only speak for the ones I have built. My first one 2009 I built a 700hp big Mopar and that is roaming the streets of Toronto currently. My second one 2010 , I removed the W2's and put a set of EQ's on and that is frying the tires off of a '67 Belevedere 4dr (ex cop car) with some long highways gears. All with the .648" hydr roller as used in the contest--no problems whatsoever. This is how I know I will never win the EMC--I have to build an engine as practical and resellable as possible I cannot afford to build a 10 pull wonder. This latest one (2011 EMC)for the moment is a dyno mule as I am putting more EQ heads through their paces with a much better intake manifold. I am really seriously considering buying a set of RHS's and testing them both back 2 back in a OOTB configuration and then treating them both to further enhancements.

As far as the EQ's the way I offer them I have a very comprehensive list that I can post if you like--read carefully. Oh and the 3.0 versions can handle over .650"-.700" . You have a PM. J.Rob
 
I have them on my Duster. They are the fully ported Hughes version, not ebay. They flow 299 @ .600 and 300 @ .650 (flow numbers by Hughes and verified by Brian at IMM). That's with 2.055 intake valves. Brian can set up a set of RHS heads to flow the same numbers with 2.02 valves, which would give better velocity.
 
RAMM said:
What numbers are you skeptical of? Flow or hp/tq? As far as EMC engines being nothing more than a dyno mule, I can only speak for the ones I have built. My first one 2009 I built a 700hp big Mopar and that is roaming the streets of Toronto currently. My second one 2010 , I removed the W2's and put a set of EQ's on and that is frying the tires off of a '67 Belevedere 4dr (ex cop car) with some long highways gears. All with the .648" hydr roller as used in the contest--no problems whatsoever. This is how I know I will never win the EMC--I have to build an engine as practical and resellable as possible I cannot afford to build a 10 pull wonder. This latest one (2011 EMC)for the moment is a dyno mule as I am putting more EQ heads through their paces with a much better intake manifold. I am really seriously considering buying a set of RHS's and testing them both back 2 back in a OOTB configuration and then treating them both to further enhancements.

As far as the EQ's the way I offer them I have a very comprehensive list that I can post if you like--read carefully. Oh and the 3.0 versions can handle over .650"-.700" . You have a PM. J.Rob
Click to expand...


Thanks Rob, I did respond to the PM.
In terms of skeptical... both, truthfully. Again, I know the value of flow figures, and how much faith can be placed in them. So lets just say I'm a natural skeptic and often find that the more realistic position to look at theworld from...lol.
On the EM package... You're right... You'll never win with that frame of mind...lol. Maybe it's me but I wouldnt consider a .648" hydraulic roller as "street friendly" even in a 4" stroke. But, that definately accounts for big horsepower numbers...lol. The RHS heads are an equally nice peice, but they are HEAVY...
 
If you wish to see the HP/Tq figures you will be able to see them in the next Feb issue of Popular HotRodding Magazine, if that means anything to you. There is nothing to hide behind at the EMC. Oh and here's a link you might enjoy, when we were in the cell Johnny Hunkins filmed a run on his phone and sent it to EQ, they really like it I guess. J.Rob

http://aaeq.net/Enginequest/Home
 
I couldn't see the numbers on the video. Mine made 513/526 on the engine dyno right after the break in. My ET's in the 1/8 were 7.35 at first, but once it loosened up and I changed to Amsoil, it dropped to 7.15 ET's. I took about 40 Lbs off the front of the car and got to 7.118. This is with 1.65 roller rockers and a Hyd FT cam (Comp XE295HL). You should be able to make over 400 HP with little or no porting on them on a stroker.
 
RAMM said:
If you wish to see the HP/Tq figures you will be able to see them in the next Feb issue of Popular HotRodding Magazine, if that means anything to you. There is nothing to hide behind at the EMC. Oh and here's a link you might enjoy, when we were in the cell Johnny Hunkins filmed a run on his phone and sent it to EQ, they really like it I guess. J.Rob

http://http://aaeq.net/Enginequest/Home
Click to expand...

Link fixed here.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SowKcEpbsyQ
 
64physhy said:
I couldn't see the numbers on the video. Mine made 513/526 on the engine dyno right after the break in. My ET's in the 1/8 were 7.35 at first, but once it loosened up and I changed to Amsoil, it dropped to 7.15 ET's. I took about 40 Lbs off the front of the car and got to 7.118. This is with 1.65 roller rockers and a Hyd FT cam (Comp XE295HL). You should be able to make over 400 HP with little or no porting on them on a stroker.
Click to expand...

This is not a stroker but a simple 4.060" flat top 360 with a 3.58" stock stroke crank, and a flow killing Weiand X-cellerator. J.Rob
 
The Youtube video shows the power. 514 is impressive. You have a lot bigger cam in that than I'm running in my stroker though if it's the one with .648 lift. What size valves are you running in it? I've always wondered if mine would have done better with 2.02's instead of 2.055's (shrouding, velocity). What do you think?
 
Actually the cam that I ran was 246/244 @ .050" with .644" at the valve .626" net after lash. Your cam is an XE295hl which features 251/257 @.050" which is bigger than mine especially if you have 1.6 rockers which would math out to .601 at the valve. It's all relative IMO. J.Rob
 
64physhy said:
The Youtube video shows the power. 514 is impressive. You have a lot bigger cam in that than I'm running in my stroker though if it's the one with .648 lift. What size valves are you running in it? I've always wondered if mine would have done better with 2.02's instead of 2.055's (shrouding, velocity). What do you think?
Click to expand...

I ran 2.08's in my heads and that's why I shaped the bowl the way I did and why I like EQ's so much--they have the material to let you get away with a 93% bowl diameter. I doubt your 2.055's while feeding 414 cubes needs any more velocity. Shrouding or should I say de-shrouding is tricky as that is closely related to pressure recovery on the chamber side of things. I like big valves as long as they are no larger than 52% of the bore size. J.Rob
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top