BB Aluminum Heads

[Challenger340]

I would like to hear opinions from guys, about what kind of power they THINK... they can make ?(if still in the planning stages) or THINK they ARE MAKING ?(if completed)
using....
untouched, O.O.T.B. Edelbrock RPM or Stealth Heads on BB Mopars ?

yep..std inch 440 builds and "heaven forbid" larger Strokers ?
Please include;
1.) the Camshaft type and profile to substantiate your plans, or claims ?
2.) The rpm range you believe it will/is running at ?

Not trying to rain on anybody's parade here ?
But I get to build and Dyno around 20 to 25 BB Mopars a year, for many years, and yes.... Flow the Heads before they go on those Engines... all kinds of different Camshafts, Intake combinations etc., etc.
and IMO,
if there is one blatant misconception floating around.... or "tunnelvision" people fixate on ?
it is,
that the SIZE of the compressor(Stroker Kit), or Engine underneath, is paramount to power ?

I will of course, post up actual Dyno Sheets, from a very large database of similar Engine combo's(or as close as possible), to show "actuals" recorded on the Dyno.
I think it may help many in the planning stages, to budget accordingly ?
and,
may help those already built, but not Dyno'd... to adjust their rpm shift points ?

 

[67Satty]

I've got a standard stroke 440 with a 238 @ .050", .534 lift hydraulic cam, TRW 2355 "6 pack" pistons close to zero deck, maybe 9.4:1 compression with stock, unported 452 heads.

Based on my ETs, car's weight, and density altitude at the track, I figure I'm making maybe 425 hp at the crank. I'm planning on upgrading the heads to knock a few tenths off my ET.

I've been considering the Edelbrock RPMs and thought they might give me another 50 cfm of flow over the 452s and get me close to 500 hp or get the Stealths and have them worked on to flow as much as the RPMs to get the same result. Or...I've been talking to a respected porter of 906s who says his 906s will flow 270 cfm and get me to about 500 hp.

Or....the latest is I talked to another respected porter who said that he would just bowl port, add larger valves, and backcut the valves on my 452s and that's all I would need with a cam of my size, that anything beyond that wouldn't do any good unless I had a cam with more lift.

I read other stuff from old school racers who say that .540 lift seems to be the magic number for iron heads, that anything more is a waste of time. If you look at the old cam profiles like Racer Brown, they used to have lower lift but a lot of duration and they worked well years ago, so why can't some of this old school stuff still work?

It seems like a lot of people are getting hung up on the advertised flow numbers of the aluminum heads but those numbers are the .600 and .700 lift numbers and most street/strip guys aren't going to be running that much lift because that much lift is going to come with a lot more duration that most want to run on the street.

It seems like a lot of people these days think they have to have stroker cranks and aluminum heads or their street/strip toy will be a dog, even though a lot of these people never seem to take their car down the track anyway.

Your thoughts? Good thread BTW.

 

[67 B-body]

I think you'll find similar information from IQ52 posts....
I know he has had many different combinations at different levels of head design with dyno sheets recording these changes / combinations....
I'm sure He'll post something here...

 

[splicer]

Just pulled OOTB Eddy's off of my 505 stroker to upgrade to ported Indy heads. Specs as follows:

Heads: OOTB 88cc Edelbrock Performer RPM. Pistons .010" down with .039 head gasket giving .149" quench area...10.4 CR
Cam: Solid roller with .570/.576 lift and 242/248 duration at .050" lift, 106 deg. centerline, lobe separation 110

Performance: 3550 lb car, 11.05 sec at 123 MPH so 550 to 600hp at crank ?

I run 94 octane unleaded with no detonation and engine confirmed that when I pulled the heads

The new combo will have MW ported Indy heads and a .050 quench area with same CR....same cam and carb.


We'll see how it does this season...if the snow here ever melts, lol.......

Splicer

 

[Meep-Meep]

I can't add a damn thing regarding power guesses using aftermarket aluminum heads. My current 440 is pretty much on par with 67Satty's and our methods of arriving at a HP guess is the same. Just car weight, ET, MPH and a little math. This will be an interesting thread to watch.

67Satty, I have made the same observations as you regarding cam lift on iron heads. It doesn't take a lot of cam to get good results, but at some point you will run out of air and have to get aftermarket heads. It all depends on your performance goal.

 

[451Mopar]

I have never ran a head "out-of-the-box". My 505 Stroked 440 has mild ported Stealth heads that were flow tested and now flow 283/200 @ 0.600". At 0.700", 289/210, but my cam is only 0.581" lift (a small Comp XR286HR Hydraulic Roller) 236/242 @ 0.050". 10.3:1 compression. TTI 1-7/8" headers, and Edelbrock XT EFI. I would think it should make between 525-550 HP?

 

[tallhair]

looking forward to this thread .. thanks C340.

I'm planning on running muti-angle valve job on stock 915 heads w/ 2.08 intake, 1.74 ex, w/ new crane springs and valves set up to handle up to .550 lift for future. Torker II or Torker 440, Stock 68 HP cam, lifters, and rockers (may swap rockers to new).

After I have the car running well on the street (I'm doing a lot of mech rebuilding so want everything sorted) I plan to switch to a stock 440 6 BBL set up with new out of the box Holley carbs.

I really didn't plan to do anything to the short block as the engine ran well before I pulled it and is pretty low miles 84K but I am still debating one other change before I put the heads on .. thinking of changing the stock 68 Magnum/HP cam to a 112 centerline - 270 duration MP cam (did I say that right Meep?) and nodular adj rockers.

thoughts / suggestions?

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

If there's one thing I've learned about the general Mopar performance enthusiast, it's that they're stuck in the past, which is disappointing.

Rant time.

As implied in the first post, want more power...the go to is 'add displacement'. People talk about adding airflow by porting stock heads, which is not a substantial improvement. I don't understand how people can think that a set of heads that work well on a 383 will work on a 440, much less 500 ci.

I've tried making comparisons to heads that other brands run - my late model 302 has heads that flow damn near what Satty and 451 are talking about for their combos, and it's a VERY mild daily driver low 12 sec combo...that could go 11s if it weren't a heavy convertible. I've also pointed out the newer LS engines...I'm about to start working on a set of LS3's for a buddy...whose port openings are damn near MW size and have a min x-section around 3.2 sq in...on 376 cu in. I get all kinds of BS about how they're 'different' and 'newer technology' as if the same principles can't be applied to BBMs. There are certain design limitations w/ any engine, but airflow doesn't have to be one of them w/ ours, yet it's the primary issue I see holding people back.

Along w/ these misconceptions of how physics are somehow applied differently depending on year an engine is developed or the name written on it, there is also this fascination and desire for 'low end torque'. Torque is the illusion of speed, imo. Getting slammed back in your seat off idle isn't too impressive if your asthmatic combo runs 12s or slower and gets 10 mpg.

People like to reference stock headed combos that did such and such....but what concessions are made? If a street car, stripping interior, huge lumpy cams, big converters? Race car mods to go street car ETs doesn't impress me.

There are also a lot of people here that think building a 440 to make 550-575 hp is as easy as tripping over one's own feet, while the majority of builds appear to be stuck in the 116-117 mph area...which means the math just doesn't add up.

I'm eager to see dyno results, but would also be interested in any data that's been collected about the cars these engines were installed in.

 

[Meep-Meep]

looking forward to this thread .. thanks C340.

I'm planning on running muti-angle valve job on stock 915 heads w/ 2.08 intake, 1.74 ex, w/ new crane springs and valves set up to handle up to .550 lift for future. Torker II or Torker 440, Stock 68 HP cam, lifters, and rockers (may swap rockers to new).

After I have the car running well on the street (I'm doing a lot of mech rebuilding so want everything sorted) I plan to switch to a stock 440 6 BBL set up with new out of the box Holley carbs.

I really didn't plan to do anything to the short block as the engine ran well before I pulled it and is pretty low miles 84K but I am still debating one other change before I put the heads on .. thinking of changing the stock 68 Magnum/HP cam to a 112 centerline - 270 duration MP cam (did I say that right Meep?) and nodular adj rockers.

thoughts / suggestions?

Specifically 112 LSA / 272 and .455" lift.

- - - Updated - - -

The 440 IS from the past, so if a particular combo meets expectations with iron heads then who cares? ET and MPH as measured in the same 1/4 mile, using the same time constant, is the same now as it was 20, 30, 50 yrs ago. 12 seconds is 12 seconds. 4000 lbs is 4000 lbs. What has changed is the availability to make big power. Indy heads, etc.. If one's expectations are to build an all out race car, that is now possible without sending the old iron heads out for $3000.00 of port work. But for a budget build street car with a moderate performance goal I see nothing wrong with properly rebuilt iron heads and a properly matched cam. Emphasis on the properly matched cam for the iron heads. My own 4000 B body has run a best of 12.80 through the mufflers with the above noted cam, factory iron intake and heads. For the money invested in this build I'm calling that a screaming success. BTW, 13.30 @ 109 with slippery street tires and 3.55's.

 

[67Satty]

If there's one thing I've learned about the general Mopar performance enthusiast, it's that they're stuck in the past, which is disappointing.

OK, now here's my rant.

This is just my humble opinion, but I think you are missing the point of these cars a little bit. We are talking about cars that were last made 35-52 years ago right? Isn't being stuck in the past kind of the point of being into vintage stuff? Part of the appeal of vintage stuff to me is learning about and keeping the mods in the spirit of what people used to do back in the day. I love the old Direct Connection and Mopar Performance recipes, and you know some of those recipes stil actual work because like you say, physics is physics.

Of course I could go faster easier and for less money with a Fox body Mustang and 302 and newer technology but that just doesn't appeal to me, I'm sorry but it's just not interesting or cool to me the way vintage stuff is cool to me.

The other thing that is fun is seeing how fast you can go with simple, inexpensive parts and combos. My forged crank, stock rods, and 440 block came from a '71 Newport in a junkyard. Me and a buddy spent an enjoyable day yanking it out of the green hulk and it cost me $25 for the shortblock. You can't get those kind of memories clicking and ordering a stroker crank kit online. My 452s I just kind of ended up with somehow for free, I don't remember where I got them anymore. Most everything that makes sense to buy used came from Craiglist, this forum, eBay, swapmeets, junkyards. The hunt and chase is part of the fun for me.

I also try to keep my mods stuck in the past for a reason, I'm trying to recreate what people were crusining around in and racing in the '70s and '80s because that's the era that reminds me of when things were more fun and simple so that's the time capsule I'm trying to create with my car.

I also like to retain all the weird quirky things that makes a Mopar a Mopar even if it means I might go a few tenths slower. So I've got stuff like Superstock springs and a pinion snubber instead of Cal Tracs, iron heads that work better than they should (if you look at their puny ports and valves). I'll be putting a Weiand Tunnel Ram on my car because for some weird reason tunnel rams seem to work better on big block Mopars and it's an old school '70s mod people used to do.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

I think you'd agree that there is no particular 'point' to old cars...all they really are is an extension of an owners personality, knowledge, desire, and unfort most of the time budgetary constraints.

I understand the 'vintage' stance - click on the link in my sig and you'll see I appreciate it quite a bit.

Just being into vintage stuff doesn't mean being stuck in the past. Aftermarket heads, cam designs, manifolds, etc means we can have cars that look classic, make power of racecars of the day, w/ great drivability. Even on a budget, to turn one's nose up at what has been learned over decades is silly...regardless of budget. NSS cars have the look, but I can guarantee they've not neglected advancement.

You aren't an example of what I'm talking about, either. You are clearly building for a specific goal, for a minimal cash outlay, and you understand that the car will be slower due to the choices you make. It's the guys that build 500+ ci engines w/ high dollar internals and compression ratios requiring anything other than pump gas and top 'em off w/ stockish heads that get to me. Their focus is misguided for a goal of going fast. That's why a new Camaro w/ a few bolt ons and sticky tires can outrun them.

The 302 in my Mustang has no advantage over a 440 tech-wise other than EFI, which really offers no advantage other than laptop tuning and marginally better mileage than if I used a carb - hell, I could make more power w/ a carb...and drivability would not change. The same is true for LS engines w/ carb conversions.

I'll be putting a Weiand Tunnel Ram on my car because for some weird reason tunnel rams seem to work better on big block Mopars and it's an old school '70s mod people used to do.

There is no 'weird reason' a TR might work. There are ways to calculate runner length and cross section to tune to specific rpm/frequencies. A TR also doesn't care what name is on the valve covers. Old or new, nothing related to a car is magic.

...iron heads that work better than they should (if you look at their puny ports and valves)

I'd say they work exactly as expected for your combo. There's nothing exceptional about them.

 

[67Satty]

There is no 'weird reason' a TR might work. There are ways to calculate runner length and cross section to tune to specific rpm/frequencies. A TR also doesn't care what name is on the valve covers. Old or new, nothing related to a car is magic.



I'd say they work exactly as expected for your combo. There's nothing exceptional about them.

I guess what I meant about the Weiand tunnel rams on big block Mopars is this - that tunnel rams seem to work better on big block Mopars than on other brands' motors for some reason. Conventional wisdom is that tunnel rams kill low-end but on big block Mopars at least, they seem to increase HP and torque everywhere, even at lower RPMs and even on mild combos where this doesn't seem to be the case with other brands. I don't know if it's a case of Weiand working more closely with the Direct Connection engineers back in the day or what. Don't forget whose engineers invented the tunnel ram in the first place.

As far as the stock iron heads on big block Mopars, looking at them on paper, it would seem like they are really terrible - valves and ports about the size of something on a small-block. So why do people still to this day argue about what is quicker, a 906-equipped 440-6 or a Hemi with the much bigger ports and valves and ability to flow more CFM? Could other things beside valve size, port size and total flow be just as important on street/strip motors with smaller lift cams?

How come the 440s with 906s can hold their own and then some against big block Chevies with their much larger valves, ports and better flowing heads? Could there by more to it than just what the flow bench says?

We see a lot of flow results here and dyno results here but not as much data that links the flow numbers and dyno results to actual ETs. Like before and after flow numbers and before and after ETs would be really interesting to see.

 

[Cranky]

My old school 'stuck in the past' (well, this was the past ) combo was max ported 906 heads on a 440 with an Isky .660 roller with Weiand TR and 750's on top, 4500 stall, 4.88 gears shifted at 6900 and crossed at 7300. This was running 10.60's in a 3200 lb car. When I pulled the engine down and had the heads flowed they were same as the Edelbrock RPM OOTB heads did which IIRC was 270...but, when you look at the port and chamber design and spark plug location vs the iron heads, the RPM heads should perform better than any max ported 906 or 452.

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Could other things beside valve size, port size and total flow be just as important on street/strip motors with smaller lift cams?

Valve events make or break any given combo.

Could there by more to it than just what the flow bench says?

Of course...see above.

We see a lot of flow results here and dyno results here but not as much data that links the flow numbers and dyno results to actual ETs. Like before and after flow numbers and before and after ETs would be really interesting to see.

There is no direct correlation between flow #s and ET. Flow can give a general idea of hp capability, that's all. There are tons of variables associated w/ ET. MPH is more accurately associated w/ hp, but still no direct correlation to flow #s.

My turn...

What happens to flow at depressions greater than 28"?

Why do flow #s at high lifts matter?

How do valve events influence flow on a running engine?

How do you get a 'small' head to make the same power as a 'big' head?

 

[IQ52]

We had an engine come to us, built by someone else, to be stroked and rebuilt. It was a .060 over 440, L2355F pistons, Torker II intake, 750 cfm holley, Crane hydraulic roller 230/236 @ .050. .528"/.539" lift, stock RPM cylinder heads. We dyno'd it before we tore it down.

RPM................TQ/HP

3000.............458/261
3500.............497/331
4000.............492/375
4500.............510/437
4700.............512/458
5000.............510/485
5400.............482/496
5500.............468/490

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Here's my current projected combo, but may change depending on a few factors (stroker is tempting):

446
Shooting for 11.5:1, but will prob end up just over 11:1
Victor heads
Victor intake
Hyd roller. 230/238 @ .050", .606"/.588", 114 LSA
TTI 2"/3.5"

Pump gas, mild idle.

575 hp at 5750rpm
600 lbft or so at 3800 rpm

 

[67 B-body]

Here's my current projected combo, but may change depending on a few factors (stroker is tempting):

446
Shooting for 11.5:1, but will prob end up just over 11:1
Victor heads
Victor intake
Hyd roller. 230/238 @ .050", .606"/.588", 114 LSA
TTI 2"/3.5"

Pump gas, mild idle.

575 hp at 5750rpm
600 lbft or so at 3800 rpm

Very close to my build....
I have a bit more comp, and use a solid MP 590 cam with 1.6:1 rockers, giving around .630" lift.
Same heads, Victor intake, but pistons are .120 domed..
I have a stud girdle for the mains, and H-Beam rods..

http://www.onallcylinders.com/?s=jim+hoover

 

[Herr_Poopschitz]

Sooo...?

Anyone else contributing to this, or is this thread dead?

 

[67Satty]

What happened to the OP, Challenger340?

 

[lewtot184]

mopar people living in the past? maybe because at one time there wasn't parts to build for a future. in my opinion mopar people in general are very inbred, decades of it.

i just got a set of edelbrock rpm heads for the current build. not really impressed. probably won't make as much power as my dwayne porter iron stage 5's i took off; unless i throw some $$ at them. how much power will my new junk make? don't care as long as i don't have to work on it.