I noticed a distinct sound change with my Gen 1 SBC heads I put on as well. Compared to my old 194 160 camel humps. What a huge gain in power thru the entire RPM range,
Thank you very much for creating these videos. I have a 65 A code and my favorite thing about it is working on it and i rely on guys like you to show me the way.
Awesome content I'm a self taught hobby porter I've had a SF 120 for many years , I'm really enjoying the fuel knowledge from an engineering level 😎 Great stuff
I’ve known of Ben Alameda for 20+ years, and I’ve been building engines since the early ‘90s. Most of my work has been influenced by Larry Widmer and his work in the ‘80s for Ernie Elliot, and the likes of David Vizard. I’m sure Ben Alameda has had similar influences.
I was also struck by what you mentioned about the mexican block, we were using one but it was 351w made in mexico, we made a 427w stroker with AFR 205 heads the car was a full weight fox 92, only k members in front suspension, transmission powerglide with transbrake the car ran 10.50 and 10.10 best time n/a and ran 9.40 with a 175 hp shot of nitrous, lots of racing a lot of abuse and the block never broke. Previously I had an American block that said 351W-CP and the car had another smaller cam for the street and it was slower, 11:30...10:90 and with very few passes and without using nitro, the block split in half in the valley of the lifters... another thing I like about the blocks made in Mexico is that they have much, much more thickness in the cylinders, 4040 has a lot of 4060 material left without any problem while the American block in 4030 is very thin.
Do to a mistake by a third party machinist, my Mexican 302 had to be sleeved on all eight cylinders. Cutting the block 4.090” for the sleeves did not break through into the water jackets, this is a critical point that Windsor and Cleveland cast 289/302/5.0L blocks can not claim. Even though the strength in the main caps is only a marginal improvement and the main webs are essentially the same as US/Canadian production blocks, the Mexican blocks simply seem to handle power and high revs a bit better.
@@TheGT350Garage ugly error of the machinist I would not like anything that happened to me too. If there are very notable differences also in terms of the casting numbers of the block, it depends on the year of manufacture, in fact some are thicker in the valley of the lifters, another thing is that the threads where the heads are screwed do not pass into the coolant, the main caps are stronger.. or at least thicker
hello friend, excellent video of great value and utility. i'm doing the exact same job on some old tfs twisted wedge heads, these were set to a 5.0, with short headers, edelbrock super victor 8.2 intake manifold, holey 750 dp, one cam that turned out to be cut 108 lsa, 230/230 duration .050 .525/.525. lift. the car is a mustang gt 89 manual transmission, the car ran 12.60 and 12.20 his best time in the 1/4 mile n/a. This car arrived broken at my workshop I don't know who built the engine. After assembling the short block I screwed the same heads, and when I put the intake to measure, I realized that without using any gasket the ceiling of the intake ports were .200 thousandths of an inch below the intake, and likewise that you thought more convenient to fill the floor of the intake runer and raise the roof removing enough material. I think that although it had that ugly detail, the car ran well, and I hope that my work on the ports will increase the power of the engine.
I’ll tell you straight away, this is an extremely work intensive job, and one that requires substantial measurements. You also have the option to epoxy or weld the manifold and correct the alignment with the intake only. On an assembled engine, that’s what I would do. Also note that some intake manifolds have issues with alignment to the heads, for instance a Holley Systemax II is not a good fit with Ford Racing Y or X series heads. If you can access another manifold for a fitment test it can help rule out a fitment issue from the heads as a manifold issue.
@@TheGT350Garage Thank you very much for taking the time to answer. and sorry if my writing is not understandable enough, i'm using google translate. surprised at how much material is in those heads, a lot of aluminum. but yes, it is a lot of work and very tiring, I also thought about shaving the manifold a bit as you mentioned, but after trying other manifolds I came to the conclusion that those heads were already very milled and that is why I decided not to modify the manifold because already I was going to have 2 wrong pieces. so I ended up removing .250" of an inch on the ceiling hoping they would flow a little better at the same time.
Thanks. Very small dome on a piston from TFS (made by Weisco). Piston to deck is zeroed by machining the block to 8.190”. Head gaskets are 4.030” bore and 0.040” thick.
Hi Walter I'm from Australia and watched some of videos I was thinking of putting a crate stroker 347 but the price is very expensive I'm running a 289 with c4 and would like to know from you what bolt on heads manifold carb to get good hp to have some fun but also to be my weekend cruiser as well, this video of yours you made me think that maybe I can give it a shot myself I am some what mechanical minded Regards Vince
I am a long time fan of the original TFS Twisted Wedge head, it is still affordable, offers great power potential, and works with a stock piston using a decent cam profile. If you’re looking for a combination, shoot me an email with your power goals and a little more info on the car, and I can point you in the right direction.
@TheGT350Garage I thinking around 350hp it's just a mild 289 with modified c4 to handle 400hp carbie is just a 2 barrel and standard exhaust system and standard manifold but it has a electronic ignition system the car is a 1969XT Falcon
If that was the case, 5.0Ls would have been less prone to block failures, but the 5.0L is more prone. In 35 years, I’ve never had a 289/289HiPo, pre-1981 302, or any 351 Windsor with a 28oz imbalance fail a block, regardless of firing order. A couple things have happened, Ford changed the balance AND the firing order on the 5.0L in 1981 and around the same time they changed the block which made the failures more common when the 5.0L Mustangs really started making power and that kind of gives the early blocks and rotating assemblies an undeserved bad wrap.
Not sure if you’re looking to confirm or argue the cause of block failures. Production blocks will all fail at some point, that point is not exactly the same for all production blocks. The early blocks are a bit better than later blocks, a couple pounds heavier, it’s arguable if the difference is in measurable thicknesses or material density, it’s a slight difference not a major one. Production 8.2” deck blocks ranked by desirability strongest to weakest would be: 69-70 Boss 302 68-74 Mexican 302 63-67 289 HiPo 6/5-bolt 65-75 289/302 6-bolt 63-65 289 5-bolt 87-01 302/5.0L 76-84 302 All other 221/255/260 blocks. The stated numbers people claim are neither precise nor consistent, especially because it’s equated to rear wheel horsepower and not flywheel torque. The reality is that 2-bolt blocks seem to manage the forces involved with high rpm with ease, because high rpm doesn’t involve nearly as much torque. But toss a 347 rotating assembly in with boost on top and 600-700 torque at the flywheel is possible as early as 3000rpm, and that force exerted at lower speed gives it time to act against the block and cause the failures. Ideally we balance internally, neutral or 0oz imbalance, and when internal balance isn’t an option, the 28oz external spec is the preferred choice to make. Aftermarket crankshafts are the first choice, then early cranks because they have superior counterweights, I try to avoid ‘81-up 5.0L 50oz cranks. I’m happy to take the better counterweight design and sacrifice the mass there, I can give it up in the balancer and flywheel. The stock 50oz rotating assembly has the worst crank with the most flex because they lightened it by removing material from the center counterweights, that flex is the real issue not the 1-5-4 or 1-3-7 firing order, it walks the main caps and fails the block, not the firing order. If anything in the firing order is contributing to the failure it’s not the 1-5, 2-6 or 3-7 pairings on the same crank pin, regardless of which firing order it is, it’s the 5-4 end to end twisting load bending and twisting the crank 180° on its axis and resulting in walking the main caps. The firing order change is placebo effect anyways, you either have 7-8 or 6-5 back to back on the same bank, wreaking havoc on single plane intake manifolds for air-fuel distribution and making proper plug wire separation a priority.
Different set of problems there with header availability to fit the car and some other R specific challenges. Plus, these were in a bad way and I picked them up for a price that made them worth using and putting all of the work into.
Cool video! I really like these heads. I run a similar set on my 332" stroker, with mild port work on heads and the victor jr, with a 250/260 @.050 solid cam, 106LSA, 10.95:1, it only makes 7" of vac. idling pretty rough at 1100, but I run a 5000 rpm converter, so I don't care what the engine does under 3500. lol It made 530hp at the flexplate. It's in a 2450 lb Mustang II, and it's a handful on the street at full throttle, but fun. I'm planning to fab up a new set of stainless headers and get the heads ported some more, I think TFS offers CNC service on these heads, I'm not sure what kind of improvements I'd see from that? p.s. I have vids on my channel smoking the street tires at 50mph. lol
The intake manifold is equally heavily modified, but not milled. By raising the ports in the heads, I’m able to port match the manifold to the heads without milling the intake faces. The intake bolt holes have to be elongated inward to get the bolts in.
@@TheGT350Garage I see what you mean now. Where you epoxied the floor it made up for the difference from the floor of the cylinder head to the floor of the intake manifold. And you cut on the roof of the port.
@scooterdude1945 yes, I raise the floor of the port more than double what I mill the head. The roof raises by almost five times what I mill. There’s a ton of material in this generation Twisted Wedge.
I’m using the Foredom pedal off of Amazon. Easy to search it. They are currently about $40. There are “no name” versions for $18-25 if you search “variable speed foot pedal” but check the reviews and the amperage ratings on them. Honestly, my grinder is right at the limit of the foot pedal’s capacity, and if I increase the amount of head work I’m doing I’ll probably buy a higher quality variable speed electric die grinder, or put foot operated pneumatic speed control pedals on my air tools for grinding.
How is it doing today? Did you get flow numbers for your TFS with raised ports? I take it you adjusted the port in the intake manifold to align with the head. How much power did it make?
A whole lot of things have happened that prevented these from getting done. To get the engine on track I actually purchased a set of Twisted Wedge 11R 190 CNC Street heads. I hope to start building the engine after Thanksgiving and have it installed between Christmas and New Years. These heads will get finished, they just require an investment of time I didn’t have this past year. I will tell you the details of Twisted Wedge castings are uniquely suited to raising the intake and exhaust ports like no other SBF heads out there. Yes, the manifold has to be modified to match. The neat thing about using these with a Victor Jr is the manifold aligns reasonably well with the modified port, the Jr is obviously much smaller than the head, but the job isn’t that bad as long as you have the time to do it.
I saw that your correct observation that the TFS TW could be raised due to the casting, it looks like the way to go. Stock Ford intake port location is too low anyways. These where one of the "tricks" used to get Cleveland heads perform. On the intake. Just use a tunnel ram. A lot of us are past thinking it's "too much", a tunnel ram will give best balanced air fuel at each port, it'll also raise and flatten the torque curve and make more peak power. Also the porting and adjustment will be easier. @@TheGT350Garage
@dennisrobinson8008 a tunnel ram is out of the question for my application. Anything taller than a single plane Super Victor is out. At that point the next step up will be Webers or ITBs.
I have the same heads. The exhaust port bolt holes are higher in relation to the ports than stock. So the headers don't line up. Should I slot the header bolt holes to match? Suggestions?
The bolt holes are above the centerline of the port on a SBF. I recommend a Mr Gasket 5930 for TFS TW170/185 heads and use a header with a rectangular port not an oval. Line the gasket up to the bolt holes and you’ll see that TFS made use of the stock dimensions really well. If the headers don’t line up, I would be less surprised that the headers are the issue.
@@TheGT350Garage Your right about the centerline of the sbf exhaust port bolt holes but at least on my heads, the holes are much higher than the centerline. I will put a video up soon on my channel showing the issue.
Will you be running a hydraulic roller setup? If so, will it be a modern aftermarket system or could you get away with the Ford factory setup for the 302's from the 80's? Thanks again for making these videos! They are very informative and fun to watch.
I am running a rather large 242/248 .576/.600 hydraulic roller cam with these heads. I’m using a link bar style retrofit lifter at this time. If I’m not happy with the hydraulics I’ll pop a set of solid lifters on this cam, the profile is versatile enough and with .018/.022 lash it would be a happy camper. I’ve run solid rollers on a hydraulic roller cam before with greater success than I’d like to admit. Paired with 12:1 compression it will make for a nice combination.
Do you have any experience or tips for porting a set of Ford C60E-M castings? They are original to my '66 GT, 289. This is the first set of cylinder heads that I've ever done any significant work to. I've got about 18-20 hours into porting so far, mostly into removing the thermactor bumps and opening up the exhaust ports. Appreciate all the content, it's been a big help.
So, iron heads, it’s all about the bowl, the roof, and the short sides. I take and exhaust. With quench chambers big valves get shrouded and hurt flow, so a 1.84/1.54 is actually ideal (think ‘69-75 351W & ‘93-97 GT40). It’s more about improving the flow without increasing the volumes. My Twisted Wedge heads are “massive” by most standards but the reality is they are only a 180cc port currently and won’t exceed 185cc (which is actually equivalent to a standard in-line valve head in the 205-210cc range because the valve is moved closer to the intake face). For guidance on iron heads, I highly recommend looking into the work of David Vizard, he has some really good content on the iron heads.
@The GT350 Garage you read my mind about the valves. I was thinking about increasing the valve diameter but didn't want to overdo it. As far as valve guides, would it be worthwhile to keep the original cast in guides or have the guides reamed and bronze guides pressed in? Thanks for reference.
Just keep the throat to seat ratio at 88-91%. A little advice, pick an area to grind and work that area in all eight ports, then repeat the next area. You’ll be shocked at how close you can get the ports as a home porter doing it that way. Also, grind down a set of old 1.78/1.48 valves to get rid of the margin and use them for all of your chamber work. If you have a bench grinder you can put the old valves in a drill and hold them to the grinding wheel to get the margins down to .040-050 or so, perfect for chamber work.
If you don’t take down the floor then there will be a step up between the intake manifold and head. A step down is ok but a step up is detrimental to port flow.
In a typical engine build, you would be correct, but this is not typical. The deck is milled to 8.190” deck height from the typical 8.206-8.211” of a production block. The heads are being milked another 0.090” to reduce combustion chamber volume from 61cc to 48cc. And I’m running a .027” thick head gasket instead of the typical.039-.042”. That all adds up and effectively lowers the port 0.120-125” from a typical unmodified assembly. Using a Victor Jr the port size is 1.9x1.1, vs my finished port entry of 2.25x1.40, so port matching the intake manifold to the head during manifold porting will resolve the issue you are concerned with.
@@TheGT350Garage yah I get what your saying but if the intake matches the gasket or isn’t a bit smaller than the gasket there’s either going to be a step on the top or the bottom correct? Being your head port is slightly smaller than the intake gasket.
There is a lot of misinformation about cylinder head size and application. As large as these will be when they’re done, they will still be ideal on my 293” combination.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and taking the time to create these videos, which as you say are aimed towards the DIY crowd including myself.
It's incredible the amount of work. And knowledge. 👌
I noticed a distinct sound change with my Gen 1 SBC heads I put on as well. Compared to my old 194 160 camel humps. What a huge gain in power thru the entire RPM range,
The SBC Twisted Wedge never really took off like the SBF version, but it’s also a good head.
Thank you very much for creating these videos. I have a 65 A code and my favorite thing about it is working on it and i rely on guys like you to show me the way.
Awesome content I'm a self taught hobby porter I've had a SF 120 for many years , I'm really enjoying the fuel knowledge from an engineering level 😎 Great stuff
Good thought process. I really enjoy that
I enjoy ur videos, n i respect ur knowledge. Its a theory engine builder Ben Alameda had on his channel
I’ve known of Ben Alameda for 20+ years, and I’ve been building engines since the early ‘90s. Most of my work has been influenced by Larry Widmer and his work in the ‘80s for Ernie Elliot, and the likes of David Vizard. I’m sure Ben Alameda has had similar influences.
Could you lathe a piece of aluminum rod to press into the thermactor hole from the side? A couple thou small.
It’s actually a 5/16” (8mm) hole. I bought 5/16” aluminum round stock and dropped it in. Then I installed the Thermactor plugs and it was all set.
I was also struck by what you mentioned about the mexican block, we were using one but it was 351w made in mexico, we made a 427w stroker with AFR 205 heads the car was a full weight fox 92, only k members in front suspension, transmission powerglide with transbrake the car ran 10.50 and 10.10 best time n/a and ran 9.40 with a 175 hp shot of nitrous, lots of racing a lot of abuse and the block never broke. Previously I had an American block that said 351W-CP and the car had another smaller cam for the street and it was slower, 11:30...10:90 and with very few passes and without using nitro, the block split in half in the valley of the lifters... another thing I like about the blocks made in Mexico is that they have much, much more thickness in the cylinders, 4040 has a lot of 4060 material left without any problem while the American block in 4030 is very thin.
Do to a mistake by a third party machinist, my Mexican 302 had to be sleeved on all eight cylinders. Cutting the block 4.090” for the sleeves did not break through into the water jackets, this is a critical point that Windsor and Cleveland cast 289/302/5.0L blocks can not claim. Even though the strength in the main caps is only a marginal improvement and the main webs are essentially the same as US/Canadian production blocks, the Mexican blocks simply seem to handle power and high revs a bit better.
@@TheGT350Garage ugly error of the machinist I would not like anything that happened to me too. If there are very notable differences also in terms of the casting numbers of the block, it depends on the year of manufacture, in fact some are thicker in the valley of the lifters, another thing is that the threads where the heads are screwed do not pass into the coolant, the main caps are stronger.. or at least thicker
Head bolts didn’t enter into the coolant on the bottom row until the engines became 5.0Ls about ‘81 with the change from 28 to 50 ounce.
hello friend, excellent video of great value and utility. i'm doing the exact same job on some old tfs twisted wedge heads, these were set to a 5.0, with short headers, edelbrock super victor 8.2 intake manifold, holey 750 dp, one cam that turned out to be cut 108 lsa, 230/230 duration .050 .525/.525. lift. the car is a mustang gt 89 manual transmission, the car ran 12.60 and 12.20 his best time in the 1/4 mile n/a. This car arrived broken at my workshop I don't know who built the engine. After assembling the short block I screwed the same heads, and when I put the intake to measure, I realized that without using any gasket the ceiling of the intake ports were .200 thousandths of an inch below the intake, and likewise that you thought more convenient to fill the floor of the intake runer and raise the roof removing enough material. I think that although it had that ugly detail, the car ran well, and I hope that my work on the ports will increase the power of the engine.
I’ll tell you straight away, this is an extremely work intensive job, and one that requires substantial measurements. You also have the option to epoxy or weld the manifold and correct the alignment with the intake only. On an assembled engine, that’s what I would do.
Also note that some intake manifolds have issues with alignment to the heads, for instance a Holley Systemax II is not a good fit with Ford Racing Y or X series heads. If you can access another manifold for a fitment test it can help rule out a fitment issue from the heads as a manifold issue.
@@TheGT350Garage Thank you very much for taking the time to answer. and sorry if my writing is not understandable enough, i'm using google translate. surprised at how much material is in those heads, a lot of aluminum. but yes, it is a lot of work and very tiring, I also thought about shaving the manifold a bit as you mentioned, but after trying other manifolds I came to the conclusion that those heads were already very milled and that is why I decided not to modify the manifold because already I was going to have 2 wrong pieces. so I ended up removing .250" of an inch on the ceiling hoping they would flow a little better at the same time.
What piston crown design, projected compression and quench? Great job!
Thanks. Very small dome on a piston from TFS (made by Weisco). Piston to deck is zeroed by machining the block to 8.190”. Head gaskets are 4.030” bore and 0.040” thick.
Hi Walter
I'm from Australia and watched some of videos I was thinking of putting a crate stroker 347 but the price is very expensive I'm running a 289 with c4 and would like to know from you what bolt on heads manifold carb to get good hp to have some fun but also to be my weekend cruiser as well, this video of yours you made me think that maybe I can give it a shot myself I am some what mechanical minded
Regards
Vince
I am a long time fan of the original TFS Twisted Wedge head, it is still affordable, offers great power potential, and works with a stock piston using a decent cam profile. If you’re looking for a combination, shoot me an email with your power goals and a little more info on the car, and I can point you in the right direction.
@TheGT350Garage I thinking around 350hp it's just a mild 289 with modified c4 to handle 400hp carbie is just a 2 barrel and standard exhaust system and standard manifold but it has a electronic ignition system the car is a 1969XT Falcon
@vincepinneri1703 shoot me an email; TheGT350Garage@gmail.com and I can shoot you a basic combination that will put you right where you want to be.
Ive heard the 1, 3 firing order takes load off the front of engine which helps with block cracking problems.
If that was the case, 5.0Ls would have been less prone to block failures, but the 5.0L is more prone. In 35 years, I’ve never had a 289/289HiPo, pre-1981 302, or any 351 Windsor with a 28oz imbalance fail a block, regardless of firing order. A couple things have happened, Ford changed the balance AND the firing order on the 5.0L in 1981 and around the same time they changed the block which made the failures more common when the 5.0L Mustangs really started making power and that kind of gives the early blocks and rotating assemblies an undeserved bad wrap.
They also changed the inbalace to 50 oz
A 600 hp plus will break
Not sure if you’re looking to confirm or argue the cause of block failures.
Production blocks will all fail at some point, that point is not exactly the same for all production blocks. The early blocks are a bit better than later blocks, a couple pounds heavier, it’s arguable if the difference is in measurable thicknesses or material density, it’s a slight difference not a major one.
Production 8.2” deck blocks ranked by desirability strongest to weakest would be:
69-70 Boss 302
68-74 Mexican 302
63-67 289 HiPo 6/5-bolt
65-75 289/302 6-bolt
63-65 289 5-bolt
87-01 302/5.0L
76-84 302
All other 221/255/260 blocks.
The stated numbers people claim are neither precise nor consistent, especially because it’s equated to rear wheel horsepower and not flywheel torque. The reality is that 2-bolt blocks seem to manage the forces involved with high rpm with ease, because high rpm doesn’t involve nearly as much torque. But toss a 347 rotating assembly in with boost on top and 600-700 torque at the flywheel is possible as early as 3000rpm, and that force exerted at lower speed gives it time to act against the block and cause the failures.
Ideally we balance internally, neutral or 0oz imbalance, and when internal balance isn’t an option, the 28oz external spec is the preferred choice to make. Aftermarket crankshafts are the first choice, then early cranks because they have superior counterweights, I try to avoid ‘81-up 5.0L 50oz cranks. I’m happy to take the better counterweight design and sacrifice the mass there, I can give it up in the balancer and flywheel. The stock 50oz rotating assembly has the worst crank with the most flex because they lightened it by removing material from the center counterweights, that flex is the real issue not the 1-5-4 or 1-3-7 firing order, it walks the main caps and fails the block, not the firing order.
If anything in the firing order is contributing to the failure it’s not the 1-5, 2-6 or 3-7 pairings on the same crank pin, regardless of which firing order it is, it’s the 5-4 end to end twisting load bending and twisting the crank 180° on its axis and resulting in walking the main caps.
The firing order change is placebo effect anyways, you either have 7-8 or 6-5 back to back on the same bank, wreaking havoc on single plane intake manifolds for air-fuel distribution and making proper plug wire separation a priority.
should have started with TFS R heads, same valve angles 15/17 but .500 raised exhaust , and enough meat to raise intake, and a 2.08 intake valve
Different set of problems there with header availability to fit the car and some other R specific challenges. Plus, these were in a bad way and I picked them up for a price that made them worth using and putting all of the work into.
Cool video! I really like these heads. I run a similar set on my 332" stroker, with mild port work on heads and the victor jr, with a 250/260 @.050 solid cam, 106LSA, 10.95:1, it only makes 7" of vac. idling pretty rough at 1100, but I run a 5000 rpm converter, so I don't care what the engine does under 3500. lol It made 530hp at the flexplate. It's in a 2450 lb Mustang II, and it's a handful on the street at full throttle, but fun. I'm planning to fab up a new set of stainless headers and get the heads ported some more, I think TFS offers CNC service on these heads, I'm not sure what kind of improvements I'd see from that? p.s. I have vids on my channel smoking the street tires at 50mph. lol
Did you have to correct the manifold face when you Milled them down to 48
The intake manifold is equally heavily modified, but not milled. By raising the ports in the heads, I’m able to port match the manifold to the heads without milling the intake faces. The intake bolt holes have to be elongated inward to get the bolts in.
@@TheGT350Garage I see what you mean now. Where you epoxied the floor it made up for the difference from the floor of the cylinder head to the floor of the intake manifold. And you cut on the roof of the port.
@scooterdude1945 yes, I raise the floor of the port more than double what I mill the head. The roof raises by almost five times what I mill. There’s a ton of material in this generation Twisted Wedge.
What foot pedal you are going to be using with your electric grinder?
Part number / price, please.
Thank you!
I’m using the Foredom pedal off of Amazon. Easy to search it. They are currently about $40. There are “no name” versions for $18-25 if you search “variable speed foot pedal” but check the reviews and the amperage ratings on them. Honestly, my grinder is right at the limit of the foot pedal’s capacity, and if I increase the amount of head work I’m doing I’ll probably buy a higher quality variable speed electric die grinder, or put foot operated pneumatic speed control pedals on my air tools for grinding.
How is it doing today? Did you get flow numbers for your TFS with raised ports? I take it you adjusted the port in the intake manifold to align with the head. How much power did it make?
A whole lot of things have happened that prevented these from getting done. To get the engine on track I actually purchased a set of Twisted Wedge 11R 190 CNC Street heads. I hope to start building the engine after Thanksgiving and have it installed between Christmas and New Years. These heads will get finished, they just require an investment of time I didn’t have this past year. I will tell you the details of Twisted Wedge castings are uniquely suited to raising the intake and exhaust ports like no other SBF heads out there. Yes, the manifold has to be modified to match. The neat thing about using these with a Victor Jr is the manifold aligns reasonably well with the modified port, the Jr is obviously much smaller than the head, but the job isn’t that bad as long as you have the time to do it.
I saw that your correct observation that the TFS TW could be raised due to the casting, it looks like the way to go. Stock Ford intake port location is too low anyways. These where one of the "tricks" used to get Cleveland heads perform. On the intake. Just use a tunnel ram. A lot of us are past thinking it's "too much", a tunnel ram will give best balanced air fuel at each port, it'll also raise and flatten the torque curve and make more peak power. Also the porting and adjustment will be easier. @@TheGT350Garage
@dennisrobinson8008 a tunnel ram is out of the question for my application. Anything taller than a single plane Super Victor is out. At that point the next step up will be Webers or ITBs.
I have the same heads. The exhaust port bolt holes are higher in relation to the ports than stock. So the headers don't line up. Should I slot the header bolt holes to match? Suggestions?
The bolt holes are above the centerline of the port on a SBF. I recommend a Mr Gasket 5930 for TFS TW170/185 heads and use a header with a rectangular port not an oval. Line the gasket up to the bolt holes and you’ll see that TFS made use of the stock dimensions really well. If the headers don’t line up, I would be less surprised that the headers are the issue.
@@TheGT350Garage Your right about the centerline of the sbf exhaust port bolt holes but at least on my heads, the holes are much higher than the centerline. I will put a video up soon on my channel showing the issue.
I commented on your video. Take a look. Email me directly if you’d like to discuss further.
@@TheGT350Garage Thanks, for your help.
Will you be running a hydraulic roller setup? If so, will it be a modern aftermarket system or could you get away with the Ford factory setup for the 302's from the 80's? Thanks again for making these videos! They are very informative and fun to watch.
I am running a rather large 242/248 .576/.600 hydraulic roller cam with these heads. I’m using a link bar style retrofit lifter at this time. If I’m not happy with the hydraulics I’ll pop a set of solid lifters on this cam, the profile is versatile enough and with .018/.022 lash it would be a happy camper. I’ve run solid rollers on a hydraulic roller cam before with greater success than I’d like to admit. Paired with 12:1 compression it will make for a nice combination.
Do you have any experience or tips for porting a set of Ford C60E-M castings? They are original to my '66 GT, 289. This is the first set of cylinder heads that I've ever done any significant work to. I've got about 18-20 hours into porting so far, mostly into removing the thermactor bumps and opening up the exhaust ports. Appreciate all the content, it's been a big help.
So, iron heads, it’s all about the bowl, the roof, and the short sides. I take and exhaust. With quench chambers big valves get shrouded and hurt flow, so a 1.84/1.54 is actually ideal (think ‘69-75 351W & ‘93-97 GT40). It’s more about improving the flow without increasing the volumes. My Twisted Wedge heads are “massive” by most standards but the reality is they are only a 180cc port currently and won’t exceed 185cc (which is actually equivalent to a standard in-line valve head in the 205-210cc range because the valve is moved closer to the intake face). For guidance on iron heads, I highly recommend looking into the work of David Vizard, he has some really good content on the iron heads.
@The GT350 Garage you read my mind about the valves. I was thinking about increasing the valve diameter but didn't want to overdo it. As far as valve guides, would it be worthwhile to keep the original cast in guides or have the guides reamed and bronze guides pressed in? Thanks for reference.
Just keep the throat to seat ratio at 88-91%. A little advice, pick an area to grind and work that area in all eight ports, then repeat the next area. You’ll be shocked at how close you can get the ports as a home porter doing it that way. Also, grind down a set of old 1.78/1.48 valves to get rid of the margin and use them for all of your chamber work. If you have a bench grinder you can put the old valves in a drill and hold them to the grinding wheel to get the margins down to .040-050 or so, perfect for chamber work.
Do sbfs need to b externally balanced?
Production cranks require external counterweights but adjustments can be made internally to the crank in most cases.
If you don’t take down the floor then there will be a step up between the intake manifold and head. A step down is ok but a step up is detrimental to port flow.
In a typical engine build, you would be correct, but this is not typical. The deck is milled to 8.190” deck height from the typical 8.206-8.211” of a production block. The heads are being milked another 0.090” to reduce combustion chamber volume from 61cc to 48cc. And I’m running a .027” thick head gasket instead of the typical.039-.042”. That all adds up and effectively lowers the port 0.120-125” from a typical unmodified assembly. Using a Victor Jr the port size is 1.9x1.1, vs my finished port entry of 2.25x1.40, so port matching the intake manifold to the head during manifold porting will resolve the issue you are concerned with.
@@TheGT350Garage yah I get what your saying but if the intake matches the gasket or isn’t a bit smaller than the gasket there’s either going to be a step on the top or the bottom correct? Being your head port is slightly smaller than the intake gasket.
@@TheGT350Garage oh I see your matching after milling I get you now sorry for the confusion.
What you see in this video is the unfinished set of heads. There was still a ton of work to be done on them.
For very large hp dragracing builds
There is a lot of misinformation about cylinder head size and application. As large as these will be when they’re done, they will still be ideal on my 293” combination.