Vote 428 or aluminum 427FE??

[RestoCreations]

Holy cow, 199 posts!

The other day I was dropping off some metal at the recycling yard and an employee asked me what two doors were from. I told him a mustang and he looked at me and said, my diddy has a nova with over 700hp, no supercharger, nitrous or nothin. I asked, what type of motor, to which he replied, i dont know.
I had a guy move some duct work around in my basement this past fall and he noticed some parts, which prompted a conversation about cars. He informed me that he and his father have over 70 novas in a field and they restore a few each year. He then proceeded to tell me about the 327 they installed in one of his novas. Its blueprinted, cast iron double hump heads, 350hp factory cam, naturally aspirated, and has 500 hp to the rear wheels. The motor is so powerful that the car can hop cans.
Im guessing the 327 has about 250hp to the rear wheels max. The stories just never end with these people. It seems to make them happy, so i usually just say, that's incredible, and let them finish the story. If i go by their logic, or lack there of, then a few of my motors must have produced at least 1,000hp.

[HI Cobra]

Yep - smacks of the uncle or friend who had a "real" Cobra! Never ends and usually gets you when you least expect it! LOL

[undy]

hmmm.... factory spec 350 hp motor with 500 to the wheels It sounds like he's been hopping cans, beer cans....after concerted attempts to vigorously and repeatedly empty them.

[Excaliber]

Rodknock says,,,

I have a hard time believing a stock HP Ford head is equal to a stock HP Chevy head...

That would seem logical, considering the porkupine valve train layout, large oval style ports, etc. So I did just a quick and brief cfm flow check for various GM heads, including after market such as AFR. I like to compare flow data at 500 lift, so anytime I speak of cfm flow, thats my base line.

Surprisingly, GM heads are not all that great compared to the High Riser, not even the Tunnel ports, of Ford. In general it appears they flow about the same or LESS than stock High Riser heads, again, at 500 lift. I would have agreed with Rodknock initially on this, I would have assumed the big block Chev heads would easily outflow the big block Ford heads. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, it appears that making in excess of 500 horse with flow well below 300 cfm is certainly do-able. In fact, by the time you get to 300 cfm, or near it, those are some bad ass heads!

The reason I like to use 500 lift, maybe 600 lift, is because I have a "hunch" that is representative of a more typical street type application. Few street cars have a lift that exceeds 600, again, just a hunch. Flow data is a lot like dyno numbers, so many variables you do have to take it with a grain of salt, not hard data. Unless those variables are carefully spelled out.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Rodknock says,,,


That would seem logical, considering the porkupine valve train layout, large oval style ports, etc. So I did just a quick and brief cfm flow check for various GM heads, including after market such as AFR. I like to compare flow data at 500 lift, so anytime I speak of cfm flow, thats my base line.

Surprisingly, GM heads are not all that great compared to the High Riser, not even the Tunnel ports, of Ford. In general it appears they flow about the same or LESS than stock High Riser heads, again, at 500 lift. I would have agreed with Rodknock initially on this, I would have assumed the big block Chev heads would easily outflow the big block Ford heads. Doesn't seem to be the case.

Also, it appears that making in excess of 500 horse with flow well below 300 cfm is certainly do-able. In fact, by the time you get to 300 cfm, or near it, those are some bad ass heads!

The reason I like to use 500 lift, maybe 600 lift, is because I have a "hunch" that is representative of a more typical street type application. Few street cars have a lift that exceeds 600, again, just a hunch. Flow data is a lot like dyno numbers, so many variables you do have to take it with a grain of salt, not hard data. Unless those variables are carefully spelled out.

Sorry, I don't believe you. Please specify which GM heads you flowed. First, most HP solid lifter cams from GM had more than .500 lift. Second, the square port (not the weaker oval port) heads are the high performance heads in the GM lineup. Third, there's no way a Ford high rise or tunnelport head outflowed a modern BBC AFR head (they have many from small to large cc's).

I would need to see data all the way through the lift range to believe you.

[RodKnock]

Here are the AFR BBC heads from very small to very large:

http://www.airflowresearch.com/index.php?cPath=68

[Excaliber]

I don't see the problem with my earlier post about the flow rates. According to the link you just posted, Rod, the average flow rate for AFR, Brodix, E-Brock, GM iron heads and many others range from a low of 240 to a high of 293. That average is based on lift amounts up to 800.

That data is consistent, in general terms as to my previous post, that any head that flows 300 or better is a terrific head. Stock big block GM heads, surprisingly, aren't significantly better than big block Ford heads.

If were comparing modern heads, like AFR, the Blue Thunder FE heads, "worked" flow 350-400 cfm.

Avg. Flow
298 276 270 262 266 247 240 270 262 273 260 263 278 275 276 272 293

[RodKnock]

Oh Ernie, stop picking and choosing data and not showing the dyno tests of GM versus Ford.

Which heads are looking at? Are you picking the smallest ones? Exhaust side only? Where is the Ford tunnelport and HR data?

[RodKnock]

Since you haven't supplied any data, here's one of top FE gurus, Jay Zolko, with flow numbers for his heavily-worked over HR heads.

http://www.network54.com/Forum/74182...e+flow+numbers

[Excaliber]

With so many variables and choices for heads it is difficult to pick and choose. I'm speaking in general terms here, "counter point" to what I belive are basic myths concerning the FE series engines, posted in this thread.

Claims such as "no way a stock FE with period correct parts could make 600 horse." Pure BS, 600 horse is easy to make, with period correct parts. Using modern parts, on pump gas, with "nothing special" type of parts you can get 800 plus horse! Another "myth", High Riser heads quote/unquote, "didn't flow squat". What IS "squat" for cfm? 200 cfm? 250 cfm? I'm saying ANY head that can flow 300 cfm is "kick ass", compare whatever heads you want. It's pretty clear that LESS than 300 cfm will easily support 600 horse! High Riser heads with just a little work, will flow 300, tunnel ports with 2.25 inch valves, more.

Something not commonly known about the side oiler vs center oiler block, which share the same bore size. The side oiler bore is "notched" or "relieved" at the top to unshroud the intake valve and improve flow. The center oiler block is not. BOTH blocks will accept a High Riser head, but only the notched block will be able to take full advantage of the flow. So, when measuring High Riser flow, or any heads for that matter, is that flow calculation also considering the BLOCK bore modifications, if any. Or, is the flow simply measured at a given bore size with no mods?

As I mentioned earlier, High Rise heads will flow 290 cfm (500 lift, CONSIDERABLY more with higher lift). Shelby STAGE TWO heads will flow 293 cfm.

[Excaliber]

Bowl Port 64' HR FE
Intake - 2.190 Test temp - 80*F
.100 - 61.8
.200 - 128.9
.300 - 196.2
.400 - 253.0
.500 - 292.0
.600 - 316.4
.700 - 329.6
.800 - 336.0
.900 - 344.4
1.000 - 349.2

667 horse, 1964 High Riser heads, NOTCHED side oiler block, solid roller cam, NOT A PROBLEM!!!

[ERA Chas]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Something not commonly known about the side oiler vs center oiler block, which share the same bore size. The side oiler bore is "notched" or "relieved" at the top to unshroud the intake valve and improve flow. The center oiler block is not.

Ernie,
With all due respect, some things you say (whether by design or misinformation) are just not true, heresay, or junk science.

Here is my STANDARD BORE SO, torn-down for installation of my then new STAGE II Shelbys. This is NOT a notched block. My previous iron MR's were modified with 2.250's and 1.75's-same as the new Shelbys. My machinist did not notch the block as it was not necessary for clearance. The location of the valves in the chamber cleared the bore walls as does the Shelbys.


That's red Dykem I applied, installed the head without gasket and cycled the valves. The valves both I & E are not shrouded by the bore. The only blocks I've ever seen which required notches are the 4.13+ overbore 428's and smaller 390 blocks--which would carry 2.19 and bigger valves. Even Cammer heads do not require block notches. Further, I had several conversations with Mike LeFevers who R&D'd these heads and he assured me there was no need to notch the block-which is why I bought them-a straight bolt-on.

Originally Posted by Excaliber

As I mentioned earlier, High Rise heads will flow 290 cfm (500 lift, CONSIDERABLY more with higher lift). Shelby STAGE TWO heads will flow 293 cfm.

JUST WRONG. Here is the Shelby spec sheet which came with my STAGE II heads. (Yes, I'm yelling). I apologize for the small scan-I don't know how to get it better. See right side data panel.



The STAGE I head intake flows 283 @ .600-THE STAGE II IS 320 AND 235@ .600.

I respect that you have built and rebuilt your own motor but I, like several others have expressed, do not believe that a 427 sized FE with Hi-rise heads, 13.5:1 and 2 660's made the famous 667 HP.

Given your above statement that (your?) Hi-risers flow(ed) 290@500-you would need a near .700 lift solid roller with 7000+ RPM capability and heads that flowed ABOVE 360 to achieve that 1.6HP/CI output. The pro builders on here with CNC programs for the EDE head are achieving 320-340cfm to mate with 482 inch combinations and juice rollers with lifts in the low to mid .600's. They regularly produce 600-630HP for their customers. It takes Blue Thunders at 360cfm+ to achieve the numbers you claim.

I also question Rod's reference source Jay Zolko believing he can achieve 800HP with Kuntz' head needing .950(!) to achieve 360cfm. Yes it didn't nose over but came from 315@.600. Kuntz is a wizard-I have seen his SBF custom head flow .408@ .800 at 28" on a SuperFlo without pipe.

Ernie- this thread had become a defensive p!ssing contest between you and the rest of the world. I'm just saying-if you continue to defend doubtful positions, please provide solid evidence to straighten us all out. And back your statements with facts-please.

[Excaliber]

ERA Chas says, and I quote with all due respect (NONE),

Ernie,
With all due respect, some things you say (whether by design or misinformation) are just not true, heresay, or junk science.

Your above post is filled with miss leading statements and BS.

First of all this isn't a pissing contest, it's a discussion, but with the attitude you bring to the table, yup, it's turning into a pissing match alright. So CALM DOWN, yes, I'm shouting.

There are exceptions to all the rules. Some center oiler 427's are notched, some side oilers aren't, most are. To bad your side oiler isn't, looks like you got some bad information and a non-standard side oiler, bummer. I reckon your heads will "flow enough" and a notch is not required for your expected horse power output. OK, thats fine with me and apparently Mike. Those intake valves of yours are certainly more shrouded than if you had the notched block. Oh well...

No question you gotta notch the smaller bore FE's to clear the big valves (390-428). Like I SAID, and now repeat, High Rise heads will fit a 427 bore, center or side oiler, which would infer, notched or not as the center oiler is NOT typically notched. There are many that believe FORD put the notch in there for a reason BEYOND valve clearance. Maybe some don't buy that, fair enough, but it sure has some logic to it.

Shelby Stage II heads will flow 293 cfm(293.8 at 500 lift to be exact). Your report shows 320 cfm, but fails to mention at what LIFT???? .900? a 1000? CFM don't mean squat without the details, just like dyno numbers don't mean squat without the details. Oh, and I certainly trust whatever Shelby has to say about his product (and pigs fly).

Where did I say how much MY High Rise heads flow? I didn't, so why are putting words in my mouth, or are you just trying to make this a pissing contest? My compression was only 12.5 to 1, not 13. Getting 700 or 800 horse out of a 427 is easy, getting it to LIVE and supplying a WARRANTY with that is the hard part! That's why a typical build is 600 horse (pick a number, any number you like) and not 800.

It's amazing to me that many of you guys actually think the Thunderbolts of 1964 were making a mere 425 horse. That's just crazy, most everyone from that era readily acknowledges an honest 500. The "debate" begins around 600 and more, as some claim they were making. Looking at the ET and Trap speeds of some of the top FE contenders into the mid to late 60's, those high horse power numbers are certainly valid with a 1/4 mile calculater. Using original parts!

You think TASCA Ford or Holman Moody or the NASCAR guys were just going to roll over and accept whatever Ford offered for an FE? 425 horse power? Gimme a break, man I gotta bridge for sale and a dozen pigeons right here ready to buy.

[ERA Chas]

Your above post is a more eloquent statement about your lack of credibility than anything I have said. I could have rebutted every paragraph you wrote but the guys are smart enough to see the conjecture, made-up crap and tangents you flail around.

The last correction I will make is that the sheet I provided is not a 'report' but the spec sheet that came in the box with the heads. The lift is not shown-you got something right- but it's the flow figure at .600" as told to me by LeFevers. Call your machinist George Anderson who sells them to verify that. And look again at the StageII flow numbers-I've shown you the evidence from the manufacturer and you still claim the wrong data. That's why I posted in the first place-thanks for the supporting evidence. The sermonizing gets tiresome for the rest of us.

Instead of getting p!ssed you could have just said that you don't agree and we'd go on from there. I told you that I respected that you're a hands-on guy but that's the limit of 'benefit-of-doubt' I can muster. Some of your stuff is just too far-fetched with lame support.

Let's give the guys a break and just agree to disagree-you've been bounced from forums before and I won't contribute to any of that.

I'm done.

[RodKnock]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

Where did I say how much MY High Rise heads flow?

Ernie, you do quote somebody's flow data above and then follow it up with the statement of "667 horse, 1964 High Riser heads, NOTCHED side oiler block, solid roller cam, NOT A PROBLEM!!!"

That does lead one to think that while those aren't your heads in some flow test (though without any reference to who, where and what) that the numbers backup your HP claim of 667 HP.

[Excaliber]

Well with so much data and number crunching around here it is easy to get confused for any of us. Which is why it's important to keep it a discussion, not a personal bashing opportunity. I don't know what MY high riser heads flow, I DO know they are worked over, but stop short of filling in the lower port area as might be done today for even more flow! Worked over in a manner like Tasca Ford, or Holman Moody or NASCAR would have done "back in the day". Without CNC machines and epoxy and 50 degree angle valve jobs and such. As such, I do believe the high riser iron heads of "yester year", with moderate work, are STILL to this DAY a valid comparison to modern heads with similiar work, call it "Stage II" perhaps.

Just like we often hear how the Cobra is "slow" compared to todays modern cars. But wait, WHAT modern cars are those we speak off? Inevitably we end up comparing a 40 year old car and it's old time tech to a HANDFUL of modern ultra high tech cars and the comparison is favorable, all things considered. Sure a modern Vett is faster, DUH, the fact we can even make that comparison speaks volumes about the Cobra!!!

Same for those old iron "back in the day" heads. Sure modern Blue Thunder's outperform, but the comparison is valid. Those "old heads" aren't bad, especially when you apply todays modern porting techiques! 1967, tunnel ports, STILL hard to beat, for instance. High Risers, with expoxy on the floor and raised ports, not bad at all. It would be a mistake to under estimate their potential, today or in 1965.

KC's basic FE offering today at 19K and change makes decent power, BUT, it surely leaves a bunch of potential power on the table. It's a low rpm hydro roller for one, low compression as well, put a solid roller in it, up the rpm, raise the C.R., there is a lot more power to be had. Do you need that more horse power? Not really, it has "enough" for good street manners, long life and excellent performance.

[Excaliber]

It's a simple question ERA Chas, what do your Shelby heads flow at 500 lift? As I see it, and the numbers tend to vary to some degree, that would be 293.8 cfm. More of course at higher lift. So, I don't see a problem here,,, 320 at 600 lift? OK then, no problem.

When comparing flow data it should be noted at what lift, at a bare minimum.

[patrickt]

In case anyone was wondering to themselves:



Source: http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...perf_rpm.shtml

[Excaliber]

Some say the Shelby heads are lighter and thinner than the E-Brock heads and as a result the E-Brock heads can ultimately be made to flow more than the Shelby's. Maybe, maybe not, "rumor has it" anyway...

I recently saw some data points for Shelby Stage II heads flowing 314 cfm at 700 lift, by the way, must be flawed data, I guess, hard to keep track of it all.

One thing seems for sure though, you got some heads, any heads, that flow 300 cfm or better and your kicking butt and taking names!

[RodKnock]

Ernie, you persuaded me. I'm now going to search for some High Rise(r) heads to replace my Edelbrocks. How much do they cost now? Like $3,500? Maybe $5,000 with the intake?