**NEW Edelbrock Victor Series Small Block Heads**
- Thread starter Mad Dart
- Start date
-
Edelbrock heads (Not the Victor) are considered stock replacement heads, no matter what work was done to them by the end user or his porter.
Stock replacement heads are defined by but not limited to;
Using stock bolt patterns on exhaust and intakes. Valve gear/rockers. Valve covers.
Stock replacement heads are defined by but not limited to;
Using stock bolt patterns on exhaust and intakes. Valve gear/rockers. Valve covers.
stroked340
Well-Known Member
So I need the Victors to make 700 h.p. huh..all depends on who's building your motor..
Hummm, good question. One of the parameters to making that power would be head flow, it's abilty. On paper, the RPM should be able to so long as it is coupled with the right stuff.
I don't see a problem. Not saying it would be easy or inexpensive. Do you see a problem?
You would basically pulling 2hp per cube. That would be a really stout build.
IMO, I think it is fantastic that the abilty is possible & there to do so with a stock replacement head. I' rather a better flowing head myself to do so. It would easier and probably require less cam.
Assuming this is a N/A engine.
justinp61
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,065
- Reaction score
- 4,053
Good parts are not cheap, I have right at $1000 in my Hedman headers including coating and my T&D rockers were almost $1100, push rods, almost $400. Quality parts that make or can withstand a bunch of power are not cheap. No matter what brand is on the hood.
Indy stuff can make excellent power when in the right hands and the correct parts to compliment them. I bought mine used un ported and called Indy just to pick their brains a little. I was on the phone with them for about 15 minutes and never felt like I was being put down or hurried to get off the phone. Having said that I have read the horror stories too so there is some issue there. I've read of many people having issues with Dave Hughes too, but I've had many conversations and never had an issue.
With small blocks getting bigger all the time we need heads that will support them. If you're running a stock stroke 340 with a purple shaft cam the new Edelbrock Victors or Indy heads are not for you.
I have a very good set of Edelbrocks that were on my 408 but when I built the 434 I knew they would be a restriction. I have no regrets using Indy heads on it.
Your mileage may vary.
Indy stuff can make excellent power when in the right hands and the correct parts to compliment them. I bought mine used un ported and called Indy just to pick their brains a little. I was on the phone with them for about 15 minutes and never felt like I was being put down or hurried to get off the phone. Having said that I have read the horror stories too so there is some issue there. I've read of many people having issues with Dave Hughes too, but I've had many conversations and never had an issue.
With small blocks getting bigger all the time we need heads that will support them. If you're running a stock stroke 340 with a purple shaft cam the new Edelbrock Victors or Indy heads are not for you.
I have a very good set of Edelbrocks that were on my 408 but when I built the 434 I knew they would be a restriction. I have no regrets using Indy heads on it.
Your mileage may vary.
o1heavy
1974 dart sport
very logical and very well said
67autocross
A new iron curtain drawn across the 49th parallel
Is someone really making 700HP with the stock replacement style Edelbrock heads?
Not that i know of. Hughes claims up to 725 with there Big Mouth heads. ---> #1---Head Flow Charts & Comparisons
How much HP from SBM ProComps? Well... 670HP!
This is pretty damn close and with a bit more CR and cam perhaps depending on the heads etc....I would say its possible.
justinp61
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,065
- Reaction score
- 4,053
I don't think the car that engine is in has shown near the speed that 670 hp will run. I'm thinking that dyno is happy.
That I don't know about that Justin....just an observation from me on some spec/numbers. What I was thinking of re Victors is that although seems overkill on a stock stroke 340/360 motor, or even just a 4" arm, with the right CR and only a mild say 260/.550>600lift sft or roller those heads flow in the 340's+ and your valve train should live well and last at 7000+, bit of reverse thinking I think, great if your limited to engine size and need max power for an all out effort ..but perhaps I'm way off on that?
Nothing a decent or even a genours shot of N02 can't fix!
Normaly aspirated i doubt you will ever see north of 700 real HP with RPM or similar heads and if you do you will probably have spent just as much on the build as you would have done on the Victorheaded engine anyway and the victor heads will have more room to grow and will make that power so much easier and without being on the ragged edge that its a nobrainer.
I think it possible but only in true race trim. Something you would never drive the street in. Gasoline Fuel NOT available at the pump.
(Or is it????) At 720 hp per cube...
It would be a 2hp/cube build for a 360.
1.76 hp/cube on a 408.
1.65 hp/cube for a 434 stroker.
Getting easier......
A 360 making;
1.50 per cube, it is 540hp,
1.65 per cube it is 594 hp.
1.76 per cube it is 633 hp.
. 720hp (a 434)
- 633hp (a 360)
= 87hp. That's a lot of hp and stress at this level.
(Or is it????) At 720 hp per cube...
It would be a 2hp/cube build for a 360.
1.76 hp/cube on a 408.
1.65 hp/cube for a 434 stroker.
Getting easier......
A 360 making;
1.50 per cube, it is 540hp,
1.65 per cube it is 594 hp.
1.76 per cube it is 633 hp.
. 720hp (a 434)
- 633hp (a 360)
= 87hp. That's a lot of hp and stress at this level.
I can see that,but at that point you are using so much cam to get there due to heads that where never intended to do anything remotly close to this that you are going to end up spending so much on valvetrain and other things that you might just have bought the victors in the first place and have a much better matched engine anyway.
We can compare this to how its possible to make 500+ real Hp with some old X heads but its not a reasonble or even remotly close to efficienct way to do so when there are edelbrock RPM heads available that will do it with a whole lot less isues,and the same comparison can be made betwen a stock replacement type head and Victor heads or most W heads.
I used to have a J headed stock stroke 340 with a whole lot of attitudeand will agree that it was fun but that thing also proved that it was much less stupid to get a better set of heads and make more power with a much better torque curve with a whole lot less cam.
Anybody know what the MCSA of these heads are?
This will tell us what the minimal HP requirement these head will demand to work properly.
Just like to big of a cam is DOG! So to could be these head on the wrong set up.
The price will keep most from making this mistake............. but it would be interesting to know what it is. (mcsa)
This will tell us what the minimal HP requirement these head will demand to work properly.
Just like to big of a cam is DOG! So to could be these head on the wrong set up.
The price will keep most from making this mistake............. but it would be interesting to know what it is. (mcsa)
Both of you guys have an excellent point. But 1fast340, to answer your question, "How much is to much cam?"
In racing, there is never enough cam. At the point your mentioning. There is just a lack of head which has always been an issue due to availabilty or money to get such a head that has the abilty.
To say this head can not use this much "***" cam IMO is ether a problem with the head flow or the end user.
The only time I say that above is when the head can not flow past .500 & the intended cam is a .750 lift. No point in using the cam.
Duration wise
It is a moot point.
Port size doesn't enter the issue on cam size. Just engine size and intended RPM range.
And you can only spend so much on the valve train parts. All top dollar stuff could be used on both heads and it is it.
And no matter how you look at it, it is expensive. Your not going to spend more on the lesser head to the point of saying the Victor is cheaper to do. The most expensive LA replacement head gear is not as expensive as the top race gear.
In racing, there is never enough cam. At the point your mentioning. There is just a lack of head which has always been an issue due to availabilty or money to get such a head that has the abilty.
To say this head can not use this much "***" cam IMO is ether a problem with the head flow or the end user.
The only time I say that above is when the head can not flow past .500 & the intended cam is a .750 lift. No point in using the cam.
Duration wise
It is a moot point.
Port size doesn't enter the issue on cam size. Just engine size and intended RPM range.
And you can only spend so much on the valve train parts. All top dollar stuff could be used on both heads and it is it.
And no matter how you look at it, it is expensive. Your not going to spend more on the lesser head to the point of saying the Victor is cheaper to do. The most expensive LA replacement head gear is not as expensive as the top race gear.
Im not all that good with words but as you get closer to the absolut max power a set of heads can support (a real 700HP RPM headed smallblock is probably pretty damn close to maxed out if at all possible)you tend to add more and more cam for a whole lot less benefit for each degree of duration and for every little bit of lift at the same time the usefull range of the engine gets shorter.
There is a point where better heads will let you make a whole lot more power with less cam. In my case i used a cam with 20degrees less duration and made a bunch more power while putting a whole lot less stress on the valvetrain both due to less springload but also due to less rpm.
With the better heads you also get longer valves and taller installed springsheights aloving more springrate with springs that survive longer and this makes the valvetrain more stable and durable.
Being able to make X amount of HP with better heads and less cam is just a win/win situation from all perspectives even thought alot of us would realy love to make all the power any given set of heads can support there is a point where its just not worth it and stepping up to a better heads is just the way to go.
There is a point where better heads will let you make a whole lot more power with less cam. In my case i used a cam with 20degrees less duration and made a bunch more power while putting a whole lot less stress on the valvetrain both due to less springload but also due to less rpm.
With the better heads you also get longer valves and taller installed springsheights aloving more springrate with springs that survive longer and this makes the valvetrain more stable and durable.
Being able to make X amount of HP with better heads and less cam is just a win/win situation from all perspectives even thought alot of us would realy love to make all the power any given set of heads can support there is a point where its just not worth it and stepping up to a better heads is just the way to go.
Ok did a little bit of backward calculation(not accurate as i don't have all the data)
Sooo here we go.....they say the intake port is 225 cc. According to pipe max, a 360 intake center port length is 3.140"(is the victor longer or...shorter?????) do the math and it comes out to a Average Cross Sectional area of 2.77".
Put my 408 spec's into "pipe max" and it show a csa between 1.637-2.090" this is at 5800 rpm.
Now if i change my spec's to 7500 rpm then the csa (cross sectional area) would be between 2.117-2.823"...... Perfect!!
Head velocity will be too low below 5000 rpm and my cam will give up by 5800.
If i have to spin my motor to 7500 rpm for these heads to work for me........can you imagine how high you would have to spin 340......... past 10,000 right?
This is all speculation as none of these ### are 100% accurate, but it give you an idea.
One thing is for sure, you better get a well sorted out valve train!!!!
Sooo here we go.....they say the intake port is 225 cc. According to pipe max, a 360 intake center port length is 3.140"(is the victor longer or...shorter?????) do the math and it comes out to a Average Cross Sectional area of 2.77".
Put my 408 spec's into "pipe max" and it show a csa between 1.637-2.090" this is at 5800 rpm.
Now if i change my spec's to 7500 rpm then the csa (cross sectional area) would be between 2.117-2.823"...... Perfect!!
Head velocity will be too low below 5000 rpm and my cam will give up by 5800.
If i have to spin my motor to 7500 rpm for these heads to work for me........can you imagine how high you would have to spin 340......... past 10,000 right?
This is all speculation as none of these ### are 100% accurate, but it give you an idea.
One thing is for sure, you better get a well sorted out valve train!!!!
1fast340;
You do understand I am not disagreeing with you right? However, on your first paragraph, considering the level of performance, are you driving the street with this kind of engine?
And it is of course there are small returns on a larger cam in this type of application. You can stop lift at any given point! Duration is just rpm band.
Since the power level of this make believe engine is more of a race engine, don't you think that this is a known issue of power band and lifting limits of a head?? A better head flows more air and supports more lift. And if such is employed and more air and fuel is possible to make more HP. But is it needed? Not always.
This argument you can not win.
Knowing a better head makes more power with less cam we all know. And that's not point. But one you keep pushing on. Why we don't know. But you have fun with that.
Now on longer valves and springs, are you suggesting the Edelbrock head can not have that done? Or a OE iron head?
Of course we would all live to step up to a better head! But some of can afford a huge change. Special intakes & exhaust.
And please don't give me the crap *** line of "Well, if ya wanna go fast, ya gotta pay!" **** line.
Considering the heads abilty (Edel') it does pretty well and shows enough air flow to possibly make that kind of HP. BUT! If you wanna go out and get Victors or what ever, you go spend your money and have run with that one as well.
I'm so glad your the Internet hero spending tons of money on this and his engine seeing you know so much.
Please feel free to send some of your money to allow me to go faster my Lordship.
Hey! Did you by chance see the F.A.S.T. Class racing latest result of the B body MoPar running in the 9's @ 140 or so MPH? Please tell him he is doing it wrong. That he needs aluminum heads and slicks to get it right will ya. And yes I know they have a ton of money in there stuff. But it's still stock stuff. Stock block, heads, intake, carbs, exhaust manifolds....
https://m.facebook.com/FASTRacingSeries/
Thanks for playin bud, but you struck out.
Next....
You do understand I am not disagreeing with you right? However, on your first paragraph, considering the level of performance, are you driving the street with this kind of engine?
And it is of course there are small returns on a larger cam in this type of application. You can stop lift at any given point! Duration is just rpm band.
Since the power level of this make believe engine is more of a race engine, don't you think that this is a known issue of power band and lifting limits of a head?? A better head flows more air and supports more lift. And if such is employed and more air and fuel is possible to make more HP. But is it needed? Not always.
This argument you can not win.
Knowing a better head makes more power with less cam we all know. And that's not point. But one you keep pushing on. Why we don't know. But you have fun with that.
Now on longer valves and springs, are you suggesting the Edelbrock head can not have that done? Or a OE iron head?
Of course we would all live to step up to a better head! But some of can afford a huge change. Special intakes & exhaust.
And please don't give me the crap *** line of "Well, if ya wanna go fast, ya gotta pay!" **** line.
Considering the heads abilty (Edel') it does pretty well and shows enough air flow to possibly make that kind of HP. BUT! If you wanna go out and get Victors or what ever, you go spend your money and have run with that one as well.
I'm so glad your the Internet hero spending tons of money on this and his engine seeing you know so much.
Please feel free to send some of your money to allow me to go faster my Lordship.
Hey! Did you by chance see the F.A.S.T. Class racing latest result of the B body MoPar running in the 9's @ 140 or so MPH? Please tell him he is doing it wrong. That he needs aluminum heads and slicks to get it right will ya. And yes I know they have a ton of money in there stuff. But it's still stock stuff. Stock block, heads, intake, carbs, exhaust manifolds....
https://m.facebook.com/FASTRacingSeries/
Thanks for playin bud, but you struck out.
Next....
Last edited:
Cudafever, I don't know nothin on getting these things to spin 10K, or anything else, but I do know that if a need, needs to be filled, if there's a will, there's a way.
Rumble I really don't think he is trying to start a pissing match. And i'm not either but i kinda have to agree with him.
Here is my mind set.
Can a 340/360 head be ported to make 270 cfm? YES i have done it. but not before i found water and broke into the roof on one of the spring pads.
I bought a set of rhs head and had IMM put 2.02 in it and maching spring for my cam. Had to flow test them heads before i installed them
they flowed 274 cfm at the lift i have for my cam.
They were way quieter and stable flow. at that same cfm.
Them rhs head got my 3860 pound car in the high 11s at 4400 feet. Not a chance in hell them 360 head i ported would have come even close to that kind of number, even thow they basically flowed the same cfm.
not even if i put a bigger cam in it.
This is what i think he is trying to say.................
Here is my mind set.
Can a 340/360 head be ported to make 270 cfm? YES i have done it. but not before i found water and broke into the roof on one of the spring pads.
I bought a set of rhs head and had IMM put 2.02 in it and maching spring for my cam. Had to flow test them heads before i installed them
they flowed 274 cfm at the lift i have for my cam.
They were way quieter and stable flow. at that same cfm.
Them rhs head got my 3860 pound car in the high 11s at 4400 feet. Not a chance in hell them 360 head i ported would have come even close to that kind of number, even thow they basically flowed the same cfm.
not even if i put a bigger cam in it.
This is what i think he is trying to say.................
I have heard and love that sound, just can't afford to make that kind of sound! and a stick shift car to boot.
LMAO. And to that I agree. I agree on a point of needing a better head to make more power and a larger cam will have diminishing results to the point of zero.
I disagree that his point pushing is a issue he can not let go of and has been proven wrong long ago and still on going to this day.
I'm not going to argue here any more with this guy who knows something but not enough to complete a pamphlet.
Far be it for me To claim better or more.
He reminds me of the guys that told me I'll never brake into the 12's with a OE intake. I can't run this, I can't do that.
OMG!
Hell! The OE poster is running these heads and not I!!!! (Yet!) And if he thinks he going to make 700+hp, well GOD bless him and good luck, I look foward to the build and dyno results.
(Not that I'm interested in a copy cat engine! A better head is what I would be looking at.)
On the 4spd note, hell yea.
-
