Indy/rhs heads?

-
Kevin D.

Kevin D.

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
934
Reaction score
35
Location
Bowdoinham,Maine.
Thinking about the indy/rhs heads at hughes #hug20301c for my 1970 340 my cam is just over .500 lift. I think they might be a good choice especially with free shipping. What do you think,Thanks Kevin.
 
If that doesn't include them cutting the spring seats and putting taller springs on them, I'd get them bare and have the work done at a different shop.
 
They Are Saying That With The Spring Kit That Comes With That Package Is Perfect For A 500 Inch Lift Cam That Is What I Have What Do You Think, Kevin
 
Are those the LAx or the MAx? the LA version is a great deal and will work with your std valve train. I looked them over pretty well at Carlisle. Nice peices IMO. There was some issue with the spring heights lately but I dont think that is impossible to overcome. I would be more concerned witht he sring pressures than lift BTW. There are modern grinds that are under .480 lift that mandate dual springs.
 
This is from Kevin at Hughes.......someone else was saying if you

We finally got someone at INDY to tell us that they have successfully cut the spring seats in these heads up to .100" We have updated our tech article to reflect this. This is GOOD NEWS! This is a great head and we have people waiting to get them. We still feel it will be very hard to get much more than a 1.725" installed height without sacrificing valvetrain geometry but this is going to be a great head for 90% of the guys out there needing an iron head. We have them in stock ready to go. We offer them with stock valves, oversize valves, super prepped and fully ported. Check out the website or give us a call.
Kevin @ Hughes

This is another conversation that I found.......

I talked to Jim with Indy while I was at the Mopar Nats. Pointed out to him what the Hughes site was saying about the spring seat and that limiting HP. His response was that the seat could be cut .100 with no problems. 1.625 installed height plus the .100 cut is equal to .1725. Add + .50 retainers and you are at 1.775. Put a + .50 keeper in and you are now at 1.825 Installed height.

Guys remember these are NOT my words..................
 
BJR Racing said:
The low lift flows are weak at best.
Click to expand...


Since the flows tests are with the smaller intake valve of 1.920 and there is no data on the 2.02 valve. I have a few questions. I do agree that the low lift numbers are weak.

1) What would be your guess be on the low lift numbers and flow out of the box with the 2.02 valve installed??? Better or worse??

2) With the data that is available out of the box. What do you think these would do in FULL PORTED trim...........flow wise?

It seems to me they would be in the 325 range at 600 lift on the intake, I can see that the exhaust flows do need some work.. If this head would it seems that you could be close to the high 600hp range or better. If you wanted to take it that far.

???
 
Mad,
Kevin at Hughes was the first guy who posted the heads were going to be useless for anything other than stock. I called him on that on Moparts as I felt with no info this was simply a matter of bashing to sell the EQ heads they sell. I spoke to Sam at ICH and he was honest. At the time, they had not done any work with them but take them off pallets. I unboxed a Magnum and LA version with him on Thursday to see them. I do think they may require some creative work to get a serious lift cam. Hoever I disagree with Bobby about the lift ranges and their usage. These heads will make over 300cfm fully ported. How much is a stretch as I dont think many guys have had a set in hand yet. But the port is quite good as is the casting. The low lift to me is a little soft but IMO it's the bowl shape which is much more performance oriented than a std Magnum or LA port. You can't compromise without loosing somewhere. These heads well exceed the limits of the EQ heads. Very well may take a good chunk out of the RPM's market share too once the bugs are figured out and widely known.
 
Regarding the comments on weak low lift flow numbers. How much low lift flow could you gain by back-cutting the valvles?
 
Back cutting = around 4-8cfm jmo

Mainly these heads offer an out of the box iron that accepts factory gear that flows over 250 out of the box and for a fair price, let alone decent potential when ported.
 
1wild,
I have a good question for you, if this set of heads flows over 250 and they show to flow 252 @ .500 but the low lift flows are weaker than a set of mildly ported irons, how are these heads going to produce more power? If the same money is spent as compared to the cost of these heads.

OK sure you can port these heads to flow, but at what lift and with cost in mind of the average guy, are they going to run a cam this size? Where the lift and flow are the greatest. For instance I did a set of heads and they are Eddy's and they flow @ .700 lift 296 cfm's, yep there great heads but if the cam being used is a .630 lift and the heads flow 270 @ .600 what good is the .700 lift value. Further more if the heads only flow 250-260 @ .500 lift then the heads that are posted by Hughes are just as good without porting. The problem I see is the fact that the heads don't flow as much under the curve as the iron heads from the factory with mild port work and at the same cost. Needless to say that the port runners are smaller and will flow as much or more with a smaller intake valve and have more velocity. Which creates more TQ and HP thats useable. At a much lower lift.

If you have ported as many sets of heads as I have then you would know that the low lifts from .200/.400 lifts is where most people run there camshafts. So with this being said the .500 or .600 lifts are very immaterial as your only at this lift for a very short time and the lower lifts #'s are or should be much, much more important.

So now these heads flow 177 @ .300 but a set that has minor porting done flows 207 @ .300 with a smaller intake valve, which one do you think that a person would be more likely to buy? With the same money invested?
 
BJR I see what you are saying, but what do you say to people that want the Magnum head. If the stock ones are so prone to cracking and these were made not to. And flow better than the stocks.. As I see it The EQ heads with the 2.02 valves are the best deal so far, since they come with everything to bolt on for around 450 each and flow 242 at 500..Im a Guy who has a cam above 500 so Im looing for the best flow at the 500 range.
 
But this is where your missing the point, it's not the .500 max lift that your cam is but what is the flow under the curve? Is it better than the factory or equal or less, then you have to look at port volume CC's and what do both have as cast? If one has a larger port volume then obviously it should flow more at high lifts, but is your engine capiable of useing the additional port volume. If it's not then IMO your backing up. Because your engine is now over headed, and more than likely will suffer on TQ and HP at low RPM's. There is always trade off's in every engine, big ports = lot's of RPM's and must be cammed accordingly, just as small ports = low rpm performance and lot's of TQ. The thing is you have to get the best of both worlds, good TQ and HP and have a rpm range that the engine can live in. Most of the people that read these forums don't turn there engines over 6000 rpm's. And as in the case of the heads mentioned they are 179 cc's as cast with 2.02 intake valves. A 318 even over bored just doesn't have the CI to use the heads effectively, just as a 360 can't use them either. Now would they work better on the 360, sure they would as the CI is larger and is capable of useing a larger intake port runner. But even for the 360 they are large, thats why most 408 engines use the 171 cc Eddy's, and they work well in this application up to 6,000 rpm's.

I understand what your after with the head cracking problem of the factory heads. But I'm sure that the factroy heads are a good bit smaller than the 179 cc's of these. I have a set of factory magnum heads here and I'll cc the port runner tomorrow and post the size. I would bet that they are a good bit smaller than 179 cc's as cast. And in reality somewhere around 162 cc's I would bet.
 
BJR Racing said:
1wild,
I have a good question for you, if this set of heads flows over 250 and they show to flow 252 @ .500 but the low lift flows are weaker than a set of mildly ported irons, how are these heads going to produce more power? If the same money is spent as compared to the cost of these heads.

OK sure you can port these heads to flow, but at what lift and with cost in mind of the average guy, are they going to run a cam this size? Where the lift and flow are the greatest. For instance I did a set of heads and they are Eddy's and they flow @ .700 lift 296 cfm's, yep there great heads but if the cam being used is a .630 lift and the heads flow 270 @ .600 what good is the .700 lift value. Further more if the heads only flow 250-260 @ .500 lift then the heads that are posted by Hughes are just as good without porting. The problem I see is the fact that the heads don't flow as much under the curve as the iron heads from the factory with mild port work and at the same cost. Needless to say that the port runners are smaller and will flow as much or more with a smaller intake valve and have more velocity. Which creates more TQ and HP thats useable. At a much lower lift.

If you have ported as many sets of heads as I have then you would know that the low lifts from .200/.400 lifts is where most people run there camshafts. So with this being said the .500 or .600 lifts are very immaterial as your only at this lift for a very short time and the lower lifts #'s are or should be much, much more important.

So now these heads flow 177 @ .300 but a set that has minor porting done flows 207 @ .300 with a smaller intake valve, which one do you think that a person would be more likely to buy? With the same money invested?
Click to expand...

My answer is if you have no heads to begin with and you're ME you would consider buying these and doing a home port job on them, a better valve job and some 11/32 valves then the low lift and total flow issue would be resolved.

I don't run heads out of the box,
but I tell you what, I'd rather start with a stockish .300 lift flow and 250's@ .500 than the same with 199-208cfm @.500 .
I run .520+ lift cams. fwiw
volume matched to the tee or not, when I stuff some gear in that thing watch out!:-D

LSS I don't think it would be very hard to get even 190's @.300 out of these heads.

And I get your point about low lift flow, with a flat tappet that is.

It costs around $850 in socal to have the cc mill correcting, multi angle VJ, guides, valves, seats, seals, then it's extra for porting.

These aren't a bad deal for brand new iron with shaft mount.
 
74burnt

Under the curve is sometimes and most of the time more important than top kick numbers.

Think about these numbers for a fictional set of heads. .100-.500
first set
71
100
120
150
350

Second set
71
130
200
265
320

Which one would you rather have. I know which I'd want.

Even putting a .500 lift cam in a engine isn't going to access the lift at .500. Think about how long the valve is actually at max lift. Not much. You might get lucky and functionally access lift rates of 430-450. Plus, don't even get started on crappy 59* rocker gear and resulting valve lift loss from the compound angles. That will compromise your actual lift at the valve as well. Might at that point, be lucky getting the .400 lift range in the cylinder.
 
so your saying that its not were your cam maxes out but what leads up to it?
 
Flat tappet cams spend more time opening than they do at ful lift, so you want to fatten/peak flow in that lifting period, thats what he's saying.

Rollers don't however.
 
I'm going to bed, but basically roller cams get the air flow giant lifts do but with less lift duration, rollers can open/close faster/sooner due to the round roller where a flat tappet would eat it's self/cut the lobe off the cam trying the same, and they stay at full lift 'peak flow' longer with less adverse affects to low speed torque and idle, depending on app of corse.

If your head flows 208cfm @.300 & peak flows 245cfm @ .400 lift, the roller cam would be good .420 lift flowing at peak longer getting more of that 245 in.
With a flat tappet you could consider .480'ish lift to lengthen the opening time/flow not worrying ,too an extent, about the stalling at full lift as it's only there for a nano second while the early fill and it's longer duration is more important, don't go too far past peak though.

Hope it wasn't lost in translation.
 
I just cc'd the factory iron magnum head and the intake runner cc'd at 154 cc's. 25 cc's smaller than the Indy/RHS head in as cast form, this is a bunch. For a comparison this is the difference between the 318 and the 360 heads. The 318's having 120-122 and the 360's having 150-153 cc's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
-

Back
Top