Great video. Back in ~2006, I ported a set of e7 heads that a friend of mine used for his 347 build. Holley systemax intake, xe282hr cam, t5 trans. It made ~310rwhp and ~360rwtq. He swapped to AFR 205s with no other changes and it made ~410rwhp and ~380rwtq 😅
I really appreciate the work involved in doing these Dyno runs. Not to mention how much money is saved by not buying the wrong parts for certain combinations.
Great stuff. With a Ford 5.0 block, I consistently get more power with a Weiand Stealth intake than a Performer RPM intake. This may be one of the few engines that happens though.
i remember reading about this test in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine many years ago. Great info. Cool to see you post it on you tube to show what I remember reading.
There was a day when 1 ho per CI was a really good benchmark and today it's mehh, the way it seems now is the acceptable minimum nowadays 1 RWHP per C.I. Or it's a total stone. It's easy to get hung up on numbers I know I do but in a regular old street car like a mustang even 300 crank HP is plenty to have a blast on the street. With a set of lower gears like 3:73 even 3:55 and that 300hp you actually have a pretty quick street car and have factory like drivability.if your going to Friday night cruise in or something pop one of the small vacuum lines off and whalah you have a lopey cam! I had a vacuum leak for months my 95 GT sounded tough, I finally found it it was a small line to a mystery box behind the intake. I never see any drivability or mpg difference after fixing it, it just had a nice lopey idle before I fixed it one that I got complemented on!. I almost popped it back off lol but I didn't.
I fondly remember the MM&FF great cylinder head test, probably the best article they ever did. Lots of amazing data. That said, after I die, I am going to come haunt your dyno and hide those 1-5/8 sbf headers. 1-3/4: This is the way.
Great comparison! I love this kind of info, just fact and no this guy said this or that guy said that. The stock head surprised me but the explanation makes sense. Thanks Richard!
"Before you do anything rash such as tossing out those stock, cast-iron 5.0L heads, you may want to read through this test". So starts Richard in the book he authored for SA Design, "5.0L Ford Dyno Tests". On a stock 302 with extrude honed stock upper & lower intakes and shorty headers, the Powerheads were worth 35 hp and 34 ft-lbs (peak to peak) over stock E7TE heads, moving the peaks by 200 for power and 400 for torque. I bought a set for my 306 based off his recommendation and I thought they were alright, though I didn't keep the car for long. They made the same power (and way more torque) in my 306 (Explorer intake, 1.5 long tubes, 274HR cam) as my friends 306 (Edelbrock dual plane and carb, 1.625 long tubes, same cam) with ported Edelbrocks, same dyno same day. Not hard numbers because neither were optimized, but you get the idea that they worked alright.
The HP per CFM seems like it's relative to displacement. It would be interesting to see results from several different heads on different displacements and get a more accurate relationship between airflow and displacement.
@@richardholdener1727 Thanks Richard. We follow your Job. In this Country, there are lots and lots of SBC, SBF and LS from Trucks. Thats is the reason why I'd like to see combinations like a 351W with Stock GT40-P Heads and Stock HO Camshafts, They are the things that people can buy here due to the situation of the country. For Me, it would very important to see an LQ9 and an LY6 with a BTR Torque Camshaft (202/202 .511"/.511" 112LSA) or Crane NSR Camshaft (200/200, 200/2008 and 206/2014), because there are Tons and Tons of Trucks and 6.0 Engines. Thanks again Richard. Thanks again for making Engineering, Thermodynamics and Physics so interesting. We respect you and we are waiting for your great work.
I got a great deal on some Performers, about 20 years ago, on eBay. If I remember correctly, your book/articles put them (2.02/1.6) pretty close to the Twisted Wedges. Much better than e7s or GT40s, anyway. They definitely woke things up. But, not enough, for me. Building a turbo kit to surpass that “block splitting” 500 mark & make the LS worshippers cry. SBF can still hang with most anything. Thanks Richard.
You're not gonna make LS guys cry with any stock Ford block. The architecture isn't there. I'm a guy who dumped alot of money into Ford crap for 15 years. Even the aftermarket blocks aren't great. I have one more 347 thats waiting to split the block in NA form. Between the blocks literally splitting in half and the lack of cylinder head clamping force they don't compare to ls stuff.
@@ryangulley2051 Says the fanboy that can’t spell (u. a. ?). Says the fanboy of a failed car company that in 2009, after it received $17.4 billion in tax dollar bailouts, went bankrupt, wiping out shares of tens of thousands of common stock holders. Furthermore, taking $49.5 billion in federal TARP money where the government only recovered $39 billion resulting in a loss of $10.3 billion shouldered by the tax payer (again). Says the fanboy of a company that hasn’t paid its “new” shareholders a dividend since March 2020. Says the fanboy of a company that has never won the 24 hrs of LeMans (wins by manufacturer i.e., the OEM). Says the fanboy of a car company that failed in an epic fashion to make an OHC V8 engine that actually worked i.e., Northstar. Finally, says the fanboy that compares “modern GM” pushrod engines (oxymoron) to older pushrods engines that were replaced in 1996 in favor of modern OHC engines, like the rest of the world. Keep up the bogus comparisons and keep chasing that chicken fanboy…
@@BlueOvalEdge I'd bet anything you've never split a small block Ford stock block because you haven't figured out how to keep a head gasket in it long enough to do it.
Just for another data point for you, my Stock Eliminator 5.0 made 302 WHP with stock E7TE heads, pulling through a stock HO intake and TB. And my heads only flowed 155 cfm even with a legal 3 angle valve job and pro flow valves.
@@dennisrobinson8008 stock compression. Stock Eliminator cams are stock lift, but tight LSA, and as much duration as you can tolerate with stock pistons/valves for piston to valve clearance. For example, on my intakes, I had about .035" clearance.
@@The_Performance_LaboratoryJust for perspective for these guys, tell them about the incredible $ involved to build a Stock Eliminator type engine....it definitely doesn't make sense for any other reason ...
I'd love to know what my rare Aussie Falcon XR8 220kw (295hp), heads from the factory, flow. They are GT40p with the Alloy GT40 valve sizes 1.94 intake/1.54 exhaust ?!
I'd like a test of the base Edelbrock fuel injection intake. Not the short runner RPM intake. Would be nice to compare it with the tubular GT40 and the Trick Fuel intakes.
I've watched pertnear every SBF video u've put out. Have not seen one on what combinations makes the most torque. Say for a 4WD or pulling a trailer. Down low power not top end. Killer videos man,thx.
To be honest, this just says to me that Ford could have put a 351w in the Mustang to go head to head with the LS if they really wanted to, when even those lil ol E7s can put up 1HP per cube on the dyno with those inches. But, alas, the commitment to the Modular was made. I love my mod motors, but it would've been even cooler to still see a 5.8 offered beside the 4.6(or if they at least would have just gave us the 4v heads in the GT from the beginning, still would've been short on power but certainly not as bad...), ya know, stretch that transition out over a longer period lol. Then, they could've phased out the 5.8 with the 5.4 instead of just restricting it to the '00R early on...
They didn't really need to.....Camaro's went extinct in spite of the LS1.... I get what you're saying though and wish they would have matched cubic inches even back with the foxbody's
@@Olds_Pwr Yes, the obvious inference being that they would've continued producing it(and in a more Mustang-oriented form; maybe the '95 Cobra R 351 becomes the standard Cobra engine while the 4.6l is the base engine for sub-Cobra models). Bring in the 5.4l Mod when it's time to completely phase out the 351w around 2000 or so, or maybe at the S197 changeover. Either that, or just make all Modular V8 Mustangs 4vs like they should have; 4.6l 4v for all sub-Cobra models, 5.4l 4v for Cobras. They could've went a number of different ways - but they chose probably the most unfortunate option for enthusiasts.
Poor flowing heads need duration lots of duration to work, the last combination you gave it duration. I’m getting close to 700hp and 630 tq from my iron headed 440 Mopars… 915 casting 2.18/1.81 valves 12.5 cr 278 and 284 @ .050 flat tappet advanced 4* shift @6500 I’ve got to hang the valves open to make power!
@@richardholdener1727I’ve never seen you test those heads? I’ve seen the 170 11R in 2 of your videos, are you confusing these with the aforementioned 190 11Rs?
loved seeing this. seeing the tfs heads on a fsb brought back lots of memories. Wish I could find my old twisted wedge r heads to send them away but maybe one day i will find them.
It used to be that e7 heads were free (might still be today, haven't needed a set in years). You could learn on porting them and not feel terrible if you broke into a water jacket. You can't go too big on the exhaust throat on the short side radius for example. They were also, arguably, the best of the pre-GT40 heads although some guys claim the D0OE 351 heads were better (whatever). Perfect combination for ~300+rwhp on the cheap.
🔔😎 good generalities. I'd like to see what the properly tight LSA from David Vizard would do in "comparison", I know the lobe profile would be different.. As a generality he alludes to 30+ from a change from @112 to @108. 306s need @109. 393s @ 106. Hhmmmm....
I saw the prequel to your video and I thought about 160 CFM! The amount of work I put into some of those heads, I bought twisted wedges for my own motor!
I'm really curious about fuel usage between the heads vs displacement. Seeing the torque curve was very informative for me with this testing. Definitely something for me to think about.
@@sckirbyc1 I'm thinking fuel volume used over time. Lots of other factors like weight, wind drag, cruising rpm off gearing, tire design. But yes that all applies to miles per gallon. I'm just specific on fuel usage over mpg specifically because you can get fuel use on an engine dyno.
@@sijonda well if you have a hotrod and you're comparing a 4.8L engine vs 6.0L with equal horsepower at 5500 RPM. What is the difference in MPG for example.
@@sckirbyc1 Hypothetical, I'm assuming if everything was identical except for the engine, the larger engine would use more fuel. But isn't the topic about heads and not engines? Thinking about it. I don't see how these engines could produce the same power at the same rpm while being a different displacement. The engine with more torque at the same rpm should require less throttle input which uses less fuel.
@@sijonda Agreed. Your original point is also interesting. My point was more along the lines of I would like this channel to add fuel usage as a metric overall. Cheers
How big of heads do you have to have for them to actually hurt low rpm power? I notice in most of your testing it seems better heads tend to make the same or more power across the rpm band. Cams do tend to loose bottom end but it seems heads are less sensitive.
Dear richard holdener, Personally on SBF i would use the tfs R series heads with matching valve angle relief pistons. What do you think about brodix STS T1 CNC 227 CC heads versus AFR equivalent on a SBC 388 cubic inch, 850-950 vac sec.other details are Comp XR hydraulic roller cams from XR288 through XR300 and pump gas compression target max with best cam to use, uses 6" rods with 4.O3O" bore. Also the same crank in a 4.155" bore block version. intake being a professional products or an edelbrock super victor 2. And then i plan to upgrade the block and pistons to a 4.2" bore world products pro lightweight or a brodix block and get the compression the same with cc.
To many people blame the heads when they are are not utilizing the heads they have properly. 460" BBC 0val Port Heads with 2.06 Int (Amateur Bowl & Throat work) 270-280 cfm - 0.600 Lift (Flat Tappet Cam) 2870 lb with Powerglide 5.96 @ 114 mph (I/8 mi)
@@junkyardrats1084 Compression was 12.5 Comp Cams Solid Flat Tappet 0 375/0.375 (Lobe) with 1.7 Rockers 310/320 (0.020) - 270/280 (0.050) 108 LSA - Installed at 105 ICL (They still make a 110 LSA version) 2.125" primary headers 1150 Dominator (Old cheap 4-Circuit) My best guess is close to 700 hp (crank) given the trap speed with a PG. With a 1.76 Low and 5,500 stall best 60' was 1.29 with 2 step at 3800 rpm.
Nice comparison. It’s amazing how a good pair of heads can bring the small 302 to life. I’m about to upgrade the heads on my 88 Lincoln Town Car and I’d to have stock like idle. What’s the cam you can suggest for stock bottom end and a pair of Edelbrock heads? Thank you.
Do you need/want a bunch of RPM? The stock HO cam with 1.7 rockers works extremely well for a street car. A friend of mine had a stock 5.0 bottom end with a set of Windsor Sr iron heads, Performer RPM intake and the factory cam with 1.7s and it made over 300rwhp with a t5.
That 393w with the AFR heads looks like a great combo for my 94F150 flareside! Been having trouble deciding between a 460-c6 combo, or just using my roller 95 truck block to build a 393! With the big block and a c6 we're probably looking at 300lbs more weight! But, will my TCI C4 hang in there? What you think, it's gonna spin the the tires a light pole anyway!😂
@richardholdener1727 Well yea! I know that! But you gotta pull that fat bastard, plus the extra 40hp to pull the c6! I gotta Lotta parts for the small block, including a tci c4! Gotta set of professionally ported 289 heads, and a tci c4! .030 over pistons already on the rods! A set of aluminum heads! Headers are probably pretty cheap! I know guys that were putting 460's into early 70's f150s! They had a 66 Falcon with a cheap 460 running 5.90 1/8 on a good night! But the trucks would run 7.0s on a good night! 1/8 mile of course, but low buck cam, intake, gear and car! Turning them 5600rpm so the didn't have to change springs! The bought every 1970-1971 Lincoln in 100 miles! 10.7 /1 compression! 😂😂😂
I'm curious being draw on the cylinder head increases flow with larger displacements if a similar outcome would happen with higher compression on smaller cubic inches? Ex: 302 with 12:1 cr
I suspect the head is flowing a higher CFM with the larger displacement engine. But is that really a good way to measure efficiency? Isn't horsepower per cubic inch a better measurement of efficiency that way you only have one variable and one constant versus CFM to horsepower which is basically two variables? I very easily could be wrong this has just got me thinking.
@@hotrodray6802 yes maybe, but if i had a 5.0 with good condition e7te's and only had X$ to spend on a basic budget streeter i would rather do that 333 combo and some home port work for free. All down to $ but really that is a strong basic true street combo.
Wow.. could you imagine doing a seat of the pants Dyno pull after making the Brodix swap. 🦅 Hope you put the right amount Scotchgard on your seats..and pants😂
I'm guessing the HP = 2 x CFM formula only applies to 8 cylinder engines? If the engine has a different number of cylinders, you have to adjust accordingly? For example, a 4-cyl would be HP = CFM. A 6-cyl would be HP = 1.5 x CFM. And so on.
I'd be interested to see what compression ratio each engine had with that stock head. I feel like that's probably what's mostly making up for the crappy flow of the head itself.
Not enough to matter. The guide and throat area is just bad on the old pushrod heads. It's the reason why the big 3 went to better versions in the 90s (Ford's GT40, Chevy Vortec, Dodge Magnum).
@@richardholdener1727Do you think throttle response would be good because of the smaller intake ports on a big engine combo? Also do you think a 750 carb would be enough to feed that combo?
So, say you are trying to make 600 hp out of a street engine. You would want the smallest port runner volume that can do 300 cfm right? A bigger volume head would make the power, but at the expense of low end torque and throttle response if I understand correctly.
@@Horrible_Deplorable My mark Vii had it and it failed at the compressor. Ended up just getting a schrader valve put on for manual filling. My Mark Viii has it and it works!
I’ve been tempted to run my 393w with hogged out gt40p heads as a budget build for my foxbody but I’m not sure of how to keep compression ratio down to pump gas daily driver friendly zone I can’t find a piston that’ll keep it under 11:1 compression
Have you done a similar test with a mediocre cam (instead of the mediocre head) and varying cubic inches? On a big block Chevy, I think this would be interesting, like 454, 496 then 540 or 572…
Hey Richard. Do you know what the Actual Airflow through these engines was? I would be much more interested in comparing THAT real number to horsepower, rather than looking for a rule of thumb airflow/horsepower correlation based on flow bench data. The flow bench is great for comparative analysis like saying, "hey this head flows better now than it did before we ported it," but, since airflow on the flow bench is continuous, it can't model any inertial supercharging effects that happen with intermittent flow in an actual engine. This would allow you to spot actual increases in thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. For example, if Setup 1 makes 300 HP at 600 CFM, and Setup 2 makes 300HP at 550 CFM, we can clearly see that Setup 2 has a higher thermodynamic efficiency than Setup 1. I just thought that might be something to ponder if you wanted to go a little deeper into the theoretical side of making power. Cheers all!
Ok the stocker flows 160 and makes 1.9hp per cfm on the 306 but you don't say how many hp per cfm the Edelbrocks are good for. Must be way down from the e7 🤔
Just watched this video and a few other ford ones and I'm still over here wondering how the twin turbo S7 cam would work in some of these tests #SaleenS7
Hey Richard, do you recall what the final timing was for the stock heads vs the aftermarket heads? Smokey Yunick, when running in a stock/restrictive racing class, recommended experimenting with running more high rpm timing advance due to the high vacuum(?) created by the E7s & large displacement & high rpm. Great work, thank you.
Great video Richard, you tests got me thinking whether the later GT40P heads would be a better starting point on a 347 than the E7TE heads or would they be restricted to around 350 hp like the E7TE heads?
If you learn how to port you may be able to save money. Not that GT40s are going to be that much more than E7 though.. but lets say you have E7s already and want to spend nothing but some cash on grinding tools.. I had to change out E7s I already ported and I already had my roller rockers and SS valves ( smaller intake ) so I bought some E7s from a friend. But basically the trick to exceeding GT40 flow is not just opening up the short turn radius and blending out the dog leg to about .550 to the wall to the OD of the valve stem hole.... But trying to clone the short side distance... going by the apex of the short side of an E7 I get about a 1.225 ... GT40s floor and short side are about a 1.340... Now there is a water jacket but as long as you stick to 1.340 and under its fine. Point being on flow bench tests I've seen how big of a difference the E7 short side makes. Other tricks like scavenge plateau on the exhaust in the chamber open about 3% more horsepower.. But to really get it over the 200 CFM mark you have to open the short side and floor. The short turn and dog leg is the real restriction but matching that short side to the GT40 is a clue... Also removing the pushrod pinch more biased toward the roof of the tunnel ( so only flattening 50% of it ) helps open up air while not losing too much velocity. Intake port entrance stays stock. Same with exhaust port... Youre barely skinning it open like it wouldnt even be port matched to the factory gasket. For my 306 is in a truck build so my objectives were high velocity and good numbers under 5500 rpm and .500 lift and under. Thats why it didn't matter still having a 1.78 valve. At the same time porting a GT40 can more easily see 220+ cfm. Just for the record E7s especially on a roller engine can probably make 400 hp.. Obviously larger valves would be chasing that. It's not hard to get them to 360 + on a flat tappet with even a 3/4 size cam. I'd argue you can definitely get a 5.0 sized engine to high 300s on E7s even with flat tappet. There's many tricks that don't just lie in the head... Many porters don't even know the scavenge plateau cut and on an engine of that level is a good 10+ chunk of power right there. Also Building a 5.0 like that is on par with at least the stock first gen coyote and I would argue if you could clone cars the OHV ( the real 5.0 ) may have advantages in certain areas of a track with a greater power band .. Looking at average dynos of a 2V 302 will have a power band that stays about 10 tq and 10 hp ABOVE the coyote until the mid 5000s and the dohc is going to scream out an extra 20 hp ... Torque and lower power bands are just better and more realistic for the street. Its an age old debate with a lot of the sport compact kids who never understood power band significance. I had a Supercoupe ... The 3.8 is basically a 302 with a couple cylinder lopped off... same bore and stroke.. But those little valves paired with a roots blower? Mine was barely modified maybe made somewhere between LT1 and LS1 in horsepower but the torque had to be close to like 420-450 ft lbs. It was insane. 3.73 gears . Killed two AODs When you get into autorotors and higher levels the power band is not as extreme but the thing basically had the power of a big block. Neck snapping loll Not the fastest car especially dealing with heat soak with factory intercooler but ... It was all ported out, eventually got a better cam and beehive springs on a rebuild but... As far as proving how important a power band is ? Was like a Tesla. Funny thing is whenever you would look up a Supercoupes ( on the forums) 1/4 time and if it had a dyno number? It NEVER made sense to people with how low the HP seemed. 3800 lb cars running 12s with rwhp still in 200s lol . But the torque? peaking at 3000? man.... So anyway. The Tbird sold me on that powerband as well as some of my friends .... At the same time? The first time feeling a DOHC V8 I was also hooked on how it kept pulling and pulling but... Funny how Magazines used to have "luxobarge" shootouts... I bet Richard was there for that lol When 3700-3900 was considered massive... Now thats like a Mustang... I feel like my van only weighs a few hundred more than a Hellcat 😆 but back when 400 hp meant something... Sure wish I had a 5.0 like that in my original 88 Thunderbird... 3300 lbs... that would be so perfect. 87 octane plenty of fun.
As always Richard, your videos are informative, as well as entertaining. I would however, like some clarification... I did not know that 393ci could be achieved from the lower deck-height 260-302 blocks. 347ci is as much as I thought possible from those engines. Thought that many inches could only be gotten from the taller 351W based block...
I would love find out a stock 390hp 427 bbc Would make with a stock cam and manifold and headers and full exhaust. Richard ,can you give me a ball park?
Very interesting video... I think I had you back in the day though...stock E7's on stock motor with 6# Paxton (you didn't say NA!) ball drive and 125 shot lol...they were ported though so disqualifies me most likely... again good video and great wealth of info.
Some actually like to drive their 302" engines without ridiculous gymnastics. Xe274hr are THE limit for driveability, unless you're a glutton for self punishment. Daily street driven race cars sux.
The 393 is The true ford Buget stroker, just add a crank and you can pull all the other parts out of the Ford parts bin. Windsor block and rods and stock 302 pistons.
I have a question if anyone can help guesstimate what mine might be making at the crank. What would a 1989 302 (bored to 306) stock heads, trick flow stage 2 cam, Edelbrock performer intake, 600 cfm edelbrock carb, and long tube headers range in hp/tq at the crank or at the wheels with an AOD? Running alternator, water pump/ and power steering.
@@richardholdener1727 You tried how many different diameters, lengths, steps, 4/1, 4/2/1, collector extensions, scavenging , etc on each? Or just an average good guess ?
@@hotrodray6802 was thinking more so how much the flow on the exhaust port effects power , intake may flow well but how much can be gained by just improving the exh port flow - also yes 4-2-1 collectors are interesting - so many questions so little time
@@Jason-kn3tw Exhaust flow as measured on a flow bench is not as critical as many think especially in fairly mild N/A combos. In many cases engine builders will give up a little bit of exhaust flow numbers if they can gain intake flow numbers. Then the cam is ground accordingly.
Great video. Back in ~2006, I ported a set of e7 heads that a friend of mine used for his 347 build. Holley systemax intake, xe282hr cam, t5 trans. It made ~310rwhp and ~360rwtq. He swapped to AFR 205s with no other changes and it made ~410rwhp and ~380rwtq 😅
When your torque beats out your horsepower on gasoline, chances are that something is bottle necking your flow.
The fuc% really?? Wow!!!
@@onescaryapothiconboi7475410 is higher than the 380.🤦🏾♂️
@@pranayshe is talking the first power numbers 310hp to 360tq read and comprehend the whole comment before commenting back
So the better flowing head made more power, what point are you trying to make?
461 Foot Lbs is impressive w E7 heads... Good experiment Richard.
I really appreciate the work involved in doing these Dyno runs. Not to mention how much money is saved by not buying the wrong parts for certain combinations.
Finally another much needed Ford build. 👍 Great comparison for these builds. Keep up the interesting updates.
Great stuff. With a Ford 5.0 block, I consistently get more power with a Weiand Stealth intake than a Performer RPM intake. This may be one of the few engines that happens though.
i remember reading about this test in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords magazine many years ago. Great info. Cool to see you post it on you tube to show what I remember reading.
There was a day when 1 ho per CI was a really good benchmark and today it's mehh, the way it seems now is the acceptable minimum nowadays 1 RWHP per C.I. Or it's a total stone. It's easy to get hung up on numbers I know I do but in a regular old street car like a mustang even 300 crank HP is plenty to have a blast on the street. With a set of lower gears like 3:73 even 3:55 and that 300hp you actually have a pretty quick street car and have factory like drivability.if your going to Friday night cruise in or something pop one of the small vacuum lines off and whalah you have a lopey cam! I had a vacuum leak for months my 95 GT sounded tough, I finally found it it was a small line to a mystery box behind the intake. I never see any drivability or mpg difference after fixing it, it just had a nice lopey idle before I fixed it one that I got complemented on!. I almost popped it back off lol but I didn't.
I fondly remember the MM&FF great cylinder head test, probably the best article they ever did. Lots of amazing data.
That said, after I die, I am going to come haunt your dyno and hide those 1-5/8 sbf headers. 1-3/4: This is the way.
Great comparison! I love this kind of info, just fact and no this guy said this or that guy said that. The stock head surprised me but the explanation makes sense. Thanks Richard!
HAPPY TO HELP
Would love to see comparison of factory E7s and cnc ported E7s such as powerheads that was popular back then.
"Before you do anything rash such as tossing out those stock, cast-iron 5.0L heads, you may want to read through this test". So starts Richard in the book he authored for SA Design, "5.0L Ford Dyno Tests". On a stock 302 with extrude honed stock upper & lower intakes and shorty headers, the Powerheads were worth 35 hp and 34 ft-lbs (peak to peak) over stock E7TE heads, moving the peaks by 200 for power and 400 for torque.
I bought a set for my 306 based off his recommendation and I thought they were alright, though I didn't keep the car for long. They made the same power (and way more torque) in my 306 (Explorer intake, 1.5 long tubes, 274HR cam) as my friends 306 (Edelbrock dual plane and carb, 1.625 long tubes, same cam) with ported Edelbrocks, same dyno same day. Not hard numbers because neither were optimized, but you get the idea that they worked alright.
But yea, I'd love to see them tested, too.
@@matthewdupuis232 respect your opinion ...
That was a great comparison video thanks for your hard work.
The HP per CFM seems like it's relative to displacement. It would be interesting to see results from several different heads on different displacements and get a more accurate relationship between airflow and displacement.
It absolutely is. Smaller cylinder is more efficient all things equal. So is a smaller valve as far a discharge coefficient
Hi Richard..! Thanks from Venezuela. I would like see more Dyno Test Videos for 351W. Good Job.
More to come!
@@richardholdener1727 Thanks Richard. We follow your Job. In this Country, there are lots and lots of SBC, SBF and LS from Trucks. Thats is the reason why I'd like to see combinations like a 351W with Stock GT40-P Heads and Stock HO Camshafts, They are the things that people can buy here due to the situation of the country. For Me, it would very important to see an LQ9 and an LY6 with a BTR Torque Camshaft (202/202 .511"/.511" 112LSA) or Crane NSR Camshaft (200/200, 200/2008 and 206/2014), because there are Tons and Tons of Trucks and 6.0 Engines. Thanks again Richard. Thanks again for making Engineering, Thermodynamics and Physics so interesting. We respect you and we are waiting for your great work.
I got a great deal on some Performers, about 20 years ago, on eBay. If I remember correctly, your book/articles put them (2.02/1.6) pretty close to the Twisted Wedges. Much better than e7s or GT40s, anyway. They definitely woke things up. But, not enough, for me. Building a turbo kit to surpass that “block splitting” 500 mark & make the LS worshippers cry. SBF can still hang with most anything. Thanks Richard.
You're not gonna make LS guys cry with any stock Ford block. The architecture isn't there. I'm a guy who dumped alot of money into Ford crap for 15 years. Even the aftermarket blocks aren't great. I have one more 347 thats waiting to split the block in NA form. Between the blocks literally splitting in half and the lack of cylinder head clamping force they don't compare to ls stuff.
@@picklefart are you drunk?
@@BlueOvalEdge u must be.a ls is leaps and bounds better than and 302 ever made
@@ryangulley2051 Says the fanboy that can’t spell (u. a. ?). Says the fanboy of a failed car company that in 2009, after it received $17.4 billion in tax dollar bailouts, went bankrupt, wiping out shares of tens of thousands of common stock holders. Furthermore, taking $49.5 billion in federal TARP money where the government only recovered $39 billion resulting in a loss of $10.3 billion shouldered by the tax payer (again). Says the fanboy of a company that hasn’t paid its “new” shareholders a dividend since March 2020. Says the fanboy of a company that has never won the 24 hrs of LeMans (wins by manufacturer i.e., the OEM). Says the fanboy of a car company that failed in an epic fashion to make an OHC V8 engine that actually worked i.e., Northstar. Finally, says the fanboy that compares “modern GM” pushrod engines (oxymoron) to older pushrods engines that were replaced in 1996 in favor of modern OHC engines, like the rest of the world. Keep up the bogus comparisons and keep chasing that chicken fanboy…
@@BlueOvalEdge I'd bet anything you've never split a small block Ford stock block because you haven't figured out how to keep a head gasket in it long enough to do it.
Let's see those stock heads on a 460 windsor stroker lol! You know... for science.
Haha, I like the way you think !!
Just for another data point for you, my Stock Eliminator 5.0 made 302 WHP with stock E7TE heads, pulling through a stock HO intake and TB. And my heads only flowed 155 cfm even with a legal 3 angle valve job and pro flow valves.
Quite a cam😲, that range is way out for a stock top end.
@@junkyardrats1084 manual transmission, so I'm guessing in the 350-360 range at the crank
What was the key in getting so much power out of the e7? Was the cr high? A big tight lsa cam?
@@dennisrobinson8008 stock compression. Stock Eliminator cams are stock lift, but tight LSA, and as much duration as you can tolerate with stock pistons/valves for piston to valve clearance. For example, on my intakes, I had about .035" clearance.
@@The_Performance_LaboratoryJust for perspective for these guys, tell them about the incredible $ involved to build a Stock Eliminator type engine....it definitely doesn't make sense for any other reason ...
I'd love to know what my rare Aussie Falcon XR8 220kw (295hp), heads from the factory, flow. They are GT40p with the Alloy GT40 valve sizes 1.94 intake/1.54 exhaust ?!
I'd like a test of the base Edelbrock fuel injection intake. Not the short runner RPM intake. Would be nice to compare it with the tubular GT40 and the Trick Fuel intakes.
I've watched pertnear every SBF video u've put out. Have not seen one on what combinations makes the most torque. Say for a 4WD or pulling a trailer. Down low power not top end. Killer videos man,thx.
big motor
wow the 393 stroker did well with shitty e7 heads...make me think i discard crappier head a bit too quickly
I see sbf, then I instantly hit like!
400 plus hp is definately not out of range for "properly" ported E7s on a 306.
4:26 If the stock engine and stock heads peak at 5400 rpm. Installing aftermarket heads will not more the peak up to 6200 rpm.
To be honest, this just says to me that Ford could have put a 351w in the Mustang to go head to head with the LS if they really wanted to, when even those lil ol E7s can put up 1HP per cube on the dyno with those inches. But, alas, the commitment to the Modular was made. I love my mod motors, but it would've been even cooler to still see a 5.8 offered beside the 4.6(or if they at least would have just gave us the 4v heads in the GT from the beginning, still would've been short on power but certainly not as bad...), ya know, stretch that transition out over a longer period lol. Then, they could've phased out the 5.8 with the 5.4 instead of just restricting it to the '00R early on...
They didn't really need to.....Camaro's went extinct in spite of the LS1.... I get what you're saying though and wish they would have matched cubic inches even back with the foxbody's
It would have been hard to go head to head with the LS engine since the Windsor was already discontinued.
@@Olds_Pwr Yes, the obvious inference being that they would've continued producing it(and in a more Mustang-oriented form; maybe the '95 Cobra R 351 becomes the standard Cobra engine while the 4.6l is the base engine for sub-Cobra models). Bring in the 5.4l Mod when it's time to completely phase out the 351w around 2000 or so, or maybe at the S197 changeover.
Either that, or just make all Modular V8 Mustangs 4vs like they should have; 4.6l 4v for all sub-Cobra models, 5.4l 4v for Cobras.
They could've went a number of different ways - but they chose probably the most unfortunate option for enthusiasts.
Poor flowing heads need duration lots of duration to work, the last combination you gave it duration.
I’m getting close to 700hp and 630 tq from my iron headed 440 Mopars… 915 casting 2.18/1.81 valves 12.5 cr 278 and 284 @ .050 flat tappet advanced 4* shift @6500
I’ve got to hang the valves open to make power!
I'd love to see you test the TFS 190 11r heads on a stock 5.0 bottom.
I HAVE RUN THOSE
@@richardholdener1727 Do you know the video name? I'll have to do some digging through your videos. Thanks!
@@richardholdener1727I’ve never seen you test those heads? I’ve seen the 170 11R in 2 of your videos, are you confusing these with the aforementioned 190 11Rs?
how to add 168hp to an E7 head combo? 175 shot of nitrous under the intake? 😆
How about cramming a few PSI down its gullet?
loved seeing this.
seeing the tfs heads on a fsb brought back lots of memories.
Wish I could find my old twisted wedge r heads to send them away but maybe one day i will find them.
See a lot of people porting the e7te heads. And the GT-40p heads. Budget friendly horse power. Great video Rich.
They aren’t even budget anymore, dudes are asking 500 for bare gt40 heads these days lol.
Porting iron heads; bad idea .
It used to be that e7 heads were free (might still be today, haven't needed a set in years). You could learn on porting them and not feel terrible if you broke into a water jacket. You can't go too big on the exhaust throat on the short side radius for example. They were also, arguably, the best of the pre-GT40 heads although some guys claim the D0OE 351 heads were better (whatever). Perfect combination for ~300+rwhp on the cheap.
🔔😎 good generalities.
I'd like to see what the properly tight LSA from David Vizard would do in "comparison", I know the lobe profile would be different..
As a generality he alludes to 30+ from a change from @112 to @108. 306s need @109. 393s @ 106.
Hhmmmm....
that lsa test video has been up for a while now
Excellent video
I would like to see a 4.7 Jeep upgraded
That just seems so wrong putting E7 heads on those engines…😂 Lmao my brain is about to spas out…😅
I saw the prequel to your video and I thought about 160 CFM!
The amount of work I put into some of those heads, I bought twisted wedges for my own motor!
What valve spring did you upgrade to on the E7's? Thanks
I'm really curious about fuel usage between the heads vs displacement.
Seeing the torque curve was very informative for me with this testing. Definitely something for me to think about.
Yeah this is something really important to me because i want to make a weekly driver hotrod. Im really curious of MPG numbers with these setups
@@sckirbyc1 I'm thinking fuel volume used over time. Lots of other factors like weight, wind drag, cruising rpm off gearing, tire design.
But yes that all applies to miles per gallon. I'm just specific on fuel usage over mpg specifically because you can get fuel use on an engine dyno.
@@sijonda well if you have a hotrod and you're comparing a 4.8L engine vs 6.0L with equal horsepower at 5500 RPM. What is the difference in MPG for example.
@@sckirbyc1 Hypothetical, I'm assuming if everything was identical except for the engine, the larger engine would use more fuel. But isn't the topic about heads and not engines?
Thinking about it. I don't see how these engines could produce the same power at the same rpm while being a different displacement. The engine with more torque at the same rpm should require less throttle input which uses less fuel.
@@sijonda Agreed. Your original point is also interesting. My point was more along the lines of I would like this channel to add fuel usage as a metric overall. Cheers
Personally I blame squirrels
HP/CFM doesn’t mean anything unless you have decent flowing heads!!!
How big of heads do you have to have for them to actually hurt low rpm power? I notice in most of your testing it seems better heads tend to make the same or more power across the rpm band. Cams do tend to loose bottom end but it seems heads are less sensitive.
CHECK OUT THE HEAD PORT VOLUME VIDEO
Very good video
Dear richard holdener, Personally on SBF i would use the tfs R series heads with matching valve angle relief pistons.
What do you think about brodix STS T1 CNC 227 CC heads versus AFR equivalent on a SBC 388 cubic inch, 850-950 vac sec.other details are Comp XR hydraulic roller cams from XR288 through XR300 and pump gas compression target max with best cam to use, uses 6" rods with 4.O3O" bore. Also the same crank in a 4.155" bore block version. intake being a professional products or an edelbrock super victor 2. And then i plan to upgrade the block and pistons to a 4.2" bore world products pro lightweight or a brodix block and get the compression the same with cc.
PLEASE SEE THE HEAD TESTS-I RAN TFS R HEADS BUT ON A BIGGER MOTOR
@@richardholdener1727 thank you soo much :o)
To many people blame the heads when they are are not utilizing the heads they have properly.
460" BBC
0val Port Heads with 2.06 Int (Amateur Bowl & Throat work)
270-280 cfm - 0.600 Lift (Flat Tappet Cam)
2870 lb with Powerglide
5.96 @ 114 mph (I/8 mi)
@@junkyardrats1084
Compression was 12.5
Comp Cams Solid Flat Tappet
0 375/0.375 (Lobe) with 1.7 Rockers
310/320 (0.020) - 270/280 (0.050)
108 LSA - Installed at 105 ICL
(They still make a 110 LSA version)
2.125" primary headers
1150 Dominator (Old cheap 4-Circuit)
My best guess is close to 700 hp (crank) given the trap speed with a PG. With a 1.76 Low and 5,500 stall best 60' was 1.29 with 2 step at 3800 rpm.
I have a 383 that has a 276HR cam with 9.5:1 and World S/Rs sitting on top of it. I have a feeling it would likely do something like this.
Nice comparison. It’s amazing how a good pair of heads can bring the small 302 to life. I’m about to upgrade the heads on my 88 Lincoln Town Car and I’d to have stock like idle. What’s the cam you can suggest for stock bottom end and a pair of Edelbrock heads? Thank you.
Do you need/want a bunch of RPM? The stock HO cam with 1.7 rockers works extremely well for a street car. A friend of mine had a stock 5.0 bottom end with a set of Windsor Sr iron heads, Performer RPM intake and the factory cam with 1.7s and it made over 300rwhp with a t5.
Be careful, I think your engine has the flat top pistons, (no eyebrows) like the 86 GT did and you will have interference
That 393w with the AFR heads looks like a great combo for my 94F150 flareside! Been having trouble deciding between a 460-c6 combo, or just using my roller 95 truck block to build a 393! With the big block and a c6 we're probably looking at 300lbs more weight! But, will my TCI C4 hang in there? What you think, it's gonna spin the the tires a light pole anyway!😂
cheaper to get junkyard 460 inches-but a 393 also works
@richardholdener1727 Well yea! I know that! But you gotta pull that fat bastard, plus the extra 40hp to pull the c6! I gotta Lotta parts for the small block, including a tci c4! Gotta set of professionally ported 289 heads, and a tci c4! .030 over pistons already on the rods! A set of aluminum heads! Headers are probably pretty cheap! I know guys that were putting 460's into early 70's f150s! They had a 66 Falcon with a cheap 460 running 5.90 1/8 on a good night! But the trucks would run 7.0s on a good night! 1/8 mile of course, but low buck cam, intake, gear and car! Turning them 5600rpm so the didn't have to change springs! The bought every 1970-1971 Lincoln in 100 miles! 10.7 /1 compression! 😂😂😂
I'm curious being draw on the cylinder head increases flow with larger displacements if a similar outcome would happen with higher compression on smaller cubic inches? Ex: 302 with 12:1 cr
is the 393 a tall deck block like a 351W? and if so, did the head bolt holes on the heads have to be increased to 1/2"?
YES AND YES ON THE STOCK HEADS
I suspect the head is flowing a higher CFM with the larger displacement engine. But is that really a good way to measure efficiency? Isn't horsepower per cubic inch a better measurement of efficiency that way you only have one variable and one constant versus CFM to horsepower which is basically two variables? I very easily could be wrong this has just got me thinking.
Port size and configuration limits flow. Of any engine it is on so that is not feasible
Gotta say,for a true streeter that e7te 333ci combo would actually be really nice.(for a true budget combo)
$100 Explorer heads would be worth 30
@@hotrodray6802 yes maybe, but if i had a 5.0 with good condition e7te's and only had X$ to spend on a basic budget streeter i would rather do that 333 combo and some home port work for free. All down to $ but really that is a strong basic true street combo.
Wow.. could you imagine doing a seat of the pants Dyno pull after making the Brodix swap. 🦅 Hope you put the right amount Scotchgard on your seats..and pants😂
I think you can word the formula like this if you’re making more than 2 hp per CFM then you stand to benefit From a better cylinder head
I'm guessing the HP = 2 x CFM formula only applies to 8 cylinder engines? If the engine has a different number of cylinders, you have to adjust accordingly? For example, a 4-cyl would be HP = CFM. A 6-cyl would be HP = 1.5 x CFM. And so on.
YES
moral of the story=buy good heads.
A buddy of mine that runs in factory stock. Nmra his 306 e7 head made 360 hp
I'd be interested to see what compression ratio each engine had with that stock head. I feel like that's probably what's mostly making up for the crappy flow of the head itself.
Not enough to matter. The guide and throat area is just bad on the old pushrod heads. It's the reason why the big 3 went to better versions in the 90s (Ford's GT40, Chevy Vortec, Dodge Magnum).
I wonder what kind of power the 393 would make with GT40 3 bar heads.🤔
30-40 more than stock
@@richardholdener1727Do you think throttle response would be good because of the smaller intake ports on a big engine combo? Also do you think a 750 carb would be enough to feed that combo?
Formula 1 people say Mach. 5
What about rockers and pushrods on the first combo? Pushrod length?
So, say you are trying to make 600 hp out of a street engine. You would want the smallest port runner volume that can do 300 cfm right? A bigger volume head would make the power, but at the expense of low end torque and throttle response if I understand correctly.
Most today use the best head that you can afford and cam the engine accordingly. The better the head is the smaller the cam has to be to make power.
I guess I been gone for a while you was in a diff house had my boys for them summer so stepped away from yt while they was here
On the 333 were the heads the 170?
I feel like I’m on the only zoom call that I’m actually listening to the person talk.
I want to pick up another sbf powered car. Im looking for another Mark VII. My old Mark was called Fergie because of the hump in the trunk.
I like the tire hump on my Mark V, too.
Bump in the trunk when the air ride Peter's out. Lol
@@timothythomas1737 my Mk V didn't come with air ride. I assume the Mk VII does?
@@Horrible_Deplorable My mark Vii had it and it failed at the compressor. Ended up just getting a schrader valve put on for manual filling. My Mark Viii has it and it works!
@@Horrible_Deplorable yup
No wonder the NA stock coyotes don't impress me..
I’ve been tempted to run my 393w with hogged out gt40p heads as a budget build for my foxbody but I’m not sure of how to keep compression ratio down to pump gas daily driver friendly zone I can’t find a piston that’ll keep it under 11:1 compression
SHOULD BE DISH PISTONS AVAIL
I have a 302 I'm putting ford racing heads on part number F3ZM6049 x302 I don't know what spark plug I need
FORD SHOULD LIST PLUGS FOR THAT HEAD
Once again proving that airflow is the most important thing for making power.
Have you done a similar test with a mediocre cam (instead of the mediocre head) and varying cubic inches? On a big block Chevy, I think this would be interesting, like 454, 496 then 540 or 572…
stock cam on a 4.8L, 5.3L and 6.0L
Hey Richard. Do you know what the Actual Airflow through these engines was? I would be much more interested in comparing THAT real number to horsepower, rather than looking for a rule of thumb airflow/horsepower correlation based on flow bench data. The flow bench is great for comparative analysis like saying, "hey this head flows better now than it did before we ported it," but, since airflow on the flow bench is continuous, it can't model any inertial supercharging effects that happen with intermittent flow in an actual engine. This would allow you to spot actual increases in thermodynamic efficiency of the engine. For example, if Setup 1 makes 300 HP at 600 CFM, and Setup 2 makes 300HP at 550 CFM, we can clearly see that Setup 2 has a higher thermodynamic efficiency than Setup 1. I just thought that might be something to ponder if you wanted to go a little deeper into the theoretical side of making power. Cheers all!
WE KNOW THE MOTOR MADE MORE POWER WITH THE EXACT SAME HEADS
It proves the point that using any E7 heads its a bad idea. Save the coin and invest on aluminum heads !
now let's see what that head would make on a 14:1 427 on methanol...
THANK YOU! you're the man!
Ok the stocker flows 160 and makes 1.9hp per cfm on the 306 but you don't say how many hp per cfm the Edelbrocks are good for. Must be way down from the e7 🤔
EVERY AFTER MARKET HEAD WAS DOWN IN POWER PER CFM
Just watched this video and a few other ford ones and I'm still over here wondering how the twin turbo S7 cam would work in some of these tests #SaleenS7
I don't know those specs
If you flow at 36 or 48 inches it starts to make more sense
Hey Richard, do you recall what the final timing was for the stock heads vs the aftermarket heads? Smokey Yunick, when running in a stock/restrictive racing class, recommended experimenting with running more high rpm timing advance due to the high vacuum(?) created by the E7s & large displacement & high rpm. Great work, thank you.
IT SAID 44
Brodix makes a better head for the sbf imo and BBF
I have tested many Brodix heads
Great video Richard, you tests got me thinking whether the later GT40P heads would be a better starting point on a 347 than the E7TE heads or would they be restricted to around 350 hp like the E7TE heads?
Out of the 2, the P heads are a no brainer.
If you learn how to port you may be able to save money. Not that GT40s are going to be that much more than E7 though.. but lets say you have E7s already and want to spend nothing but some cash on grinding tools.. I had to change out E7s I already ported and I already had my roller rockers and SS valves ( smaller intake ) so I bought some E7s from a friend. But basically the trick to exceeding GT40 flow is not just opening up the short turn radius and blending out the dog leg to about .550 to the wall to the OD of the valve stem hole.... But trying to clone the short side distance... going by the apex of the short side of an E7 I get about a 1.225 ... GT40s floor and short side are about a 1.340... Now there is a water jacket but as long as you stick to 1.340 and under its fine. Point being on flow bench tests I've seen how big of a difference the E7 short side makes. Other tricks like scavenge plateau on the exhaust in the chamber open about 3% more horsepower.. But to really get it over the 200 CFM mark you have to open the short side and floor. The short turn and dog leg is the real restriction but matching that short side to the GT40 is a clue... Also removing the pushrod pinch more biased toward the roof of the tunnel ( so only flattening 50% of it ) helps open up air while not losing too much velocity. Intake port entrance stays stock. Same with exhaust port... Youre barely skinning it open like it wouldnt even be port matched to the factory gasket. For my 306 is in a truck build so my objectives were high velocity and good numbers under 5500 rpm and .500 lift and under. Thats why it didn't matter still having a 1.78 valve. At the same time porting a GT40 can more easily see 220+ cfm. Just for the record E7s especially on a roller engine can probably make 400 hp.. Obviously larger valves would be chasing that. It's not hard to get them to 360 + on a flat tappet with even a 3/4 size cam. I'd argue you can definitely get a 5.0 sized engine to high 300s on E7s even with flat tappet. There's many tricks that don't just lie in the head... Many porters don't even know the scavenge plateau cut and on an engine of that level is a good 10+ chunk of power right there. Also Building a 5.0 like that is on par with at least the stock first gen coyote and I would argue if you could clone cars the OHV ( the real 5.0 ) may have advantages in certain areas of a track with a greater power band .. Looking at average dynos of a 2V 302 will have a power band that stays about 10 tq and 10 hp ABOVE the coyote until the mid 5000s and the dohc is going to scream out an extra 20 hp ... Torque and lower power bands are just better and more realistic for the street. Its an age old debate with a lot of the sport compact kids who never understood power band significance. I had a Supercoupe ... The 3.8 is basically a 302 with a couple cylinder lopped off... same bore and stroke.. But those little valves paired with a roots blower? Mine was barely modified maybe made somewhere between LT1 and LS1 in horsepower but the torque had to be close to like 420-450 ft lbs. It was insane. 3.73 gears . Killed two AODs When you get into autorotors and higher levels the power band is not as extreme but the thing basically had the power of a big block. Neck snapping loll Not the fastest car especially dealing with heat soak with factory intercooler but ... It was all ported out, eventually got a better cam and beehive springs on a rebuild but... As far as proving how important a power band is ? Was like a Tesla. Funny thing is whenever you would look up a Supercoupes ( on the forums) 1/4 time and if it had a dyno number? It NEVER made sense to people with how low the HP seemed. 3800 lb cars running 12s with rwhp still in 200s lol . But the torque? peaking at 3000? man.... So anyway. The Tbird sold me on that powerband as well as some of my friends .... At the same time? The first time feeling a DOHC V8 I was also hooked on how it kept pulling and pulling but... Funny how Magazines used to have "luxobarge" shootouts... I bet Richard was there for that lol When 3700-3900 was considered massive... Now thats like a Mustang... I feel like my van only weighs a few hundred more than a Hellcat 😆 but back when 400 hp meant something... Sure wish I had a 5.0 like that in my original 88 Thunderbird... 3300 lbs... that would be so perfect. 87 octane plenty of fun.
Start at 13:30, he says stay away from the P heads. ua-cam.com/video/GjTl_JSn1Zw/v-deo.html
Hey Richard!
Have you done 351C 2V vs 4V vs 4v with port stuffers?
NO SIR
As always Richard, your videos are informative, as well as entertaining. I would however, like some clarification... I did not know that 393ci could be achieved from the lower deck-height 260-302 blocks. 347ci is as much as I thought possible from those engines. Thought that many inches could only be gotten from the taller 351W based block...
the 393 started as a 351 block
@@richardholdener1727 Many thanks for your prompt response, and clarification...
Damn,,,,,it wouldn’t be one of your videos without that porn music intro.
I would love find out a stock 390hp 427 bbc
Would make with a stock cam and manifold and headers and full exhaust.
Richard ,can you give me a ball park?
HAVE NEVER TESTED ONE
The 393 is based on a 351 block?
yes
Gives me a rough idea on what my 225 afr headed 393 will make .. I'm happy .
so how did it go
Air flow is not everything, Shape and Velocity is king.
I need to work on my Avatar air bending
Very interesting video... I think I had you back in the day though...stock E7's on stock motor with 6# Paxton (you didn't say NA!) ball drive and 125 shot lol...they were ported though so disqualifies me most likely... again good video and great wealth of info.
What intake was used on the 393?
What was the compression on 393 with iron head ?
Thank you Richard.
Did the stock heads flow all the way to .600 or back up
all the way
the 264 cam in the 306 is very mild. what would the numbers be if the same cam and carb
was in the 330 and 393?
Some actually like to drive their 302" engines without ridiculous gymnastics. Xe274hr are THE limit for driveability, unless you're a glutton for self punishment. Daily street driven race cars sux.
The XE274HR is far from a race cam (I drove mine daily for 85,000 mile)
@@hotrodray6802 Thats what I am sayin. . Starting with a good basis like this 306 and see what happens if you go bigger in cubes with what you have.
What's your rule of thumb for fuel pounds per hour to horsepower? Was told to multiply lbs/hr times 2 to get horsepower.
That 393 is a hot setup!
The 393 is The true ford Buget stroker, just add a crank and you can pull all the other parts out of the Ford parts bin. Windsor block and rods and stock 302 pistons.
There’s no replacement for displacement.
If all things being fair, I say yes. But, boost and or compression will change that.
I have a question if anyone can help guesstimate what mine might be making at the crank. What would a 1989 302 (bored to 306) stock heads, trick flow stage 2 cam, Edelbrock performer intake, 600 cfm edelbrock carb, and long tube headers range in hp/tq at the crank or at the wheels with an AOD?
Running alternator, water pump/ and power steering.
mid 3s
@@richardholdener1727 thanks man good to know!
Excellent rule: CFM×2=Max hp
So you ran that big cam in the 393 stock head ?
yes-with springs
@@richardholdener1727 And studs. and guide plates.
👎
🤔
Be nice see testing on just the exhaust side of the heads - doesn't seem to get looked at much - nice video again
And all headers are just compromises, not optimized. Who knows what proper scavenging might do.
ALL HEADERS?
@@richardholdener1727 You tried how many different diameters, lengths, steps, 4/1, 4/2/1, collector extensions, scavenging , etc on each? Or just an average good guess ?
@@hotrodray6802 was thinking more so how much the flow on the exhaust port effects power , intake may flow well but how much can be gained by just improving the exh port flow - also yes 4-2-1 collectors are interesting - so many questions so little time
@@Jason-kn3tw Exhaust flow as measured on a flow bench is not as critical as many think especially in fairly mild N/A combos. In many cases engine builders will give up a little bit of exhaust flow numbers if they can gain intake flow numbers. Then the cam is ground accordingly.