Max HP and Lift With SCJ Heads

c.evans wrote:Guys,

I get a lot of cylinder head repair jobs in here. From what I have seen in terms of real world experience, I would not advocate anyone running an Edelbrock Performer 429-460 CJ style head at 15.5:1 compression. It will never hold the head gasket. The head is too much of a lightweight head.

For that kind of compression, I am a strong supported of the bigger and stronger 18 bolt heads such as the TFS A-460, the FRPP C-460, or the Pro-Filer and Thor heads.

Charlie Evans

your sayin you wouldnt use a EDELBROCK head for a max effort hp deal?

light as in deck too thin?

Theres a lot of guys that run 10 bolt heads with compression in that neighborhood with good results. I would agree a 18 bolt would be beneficial, but not everyone has them. If you have a cylinder head already whether it be edelbrock, or otherwise you gotta do what's necessary to get the most out of it. I know of a 508 that makes north of 800 hp NA and is set up for spray and has an iron head, and the only head gasket issue hes had was fuel related. I'm also curious whether your speaking of the deck itself.

BOSS 429 wrote:

c.evans wrote:Guys,

I get a lot of cylinder head repair jobs in here. From what I have seen in terms of real world experience, I would not advocate anyone running an Edelbrock Performer 429-460 CJ style head at 15.5:1 compression. It will never hold the head gasket. The head is too much of a lightweight head.

For that kind of compression, I am a strong supported of the bigger and stronger 18 bolt heads such as the TFS A-460, the FRPP C-460, or the Pro-Filer and Thor heads.

Charlie Evans

your sayin you wouldnt use a EDELBROCK head for a max effort hp deal?

light as in deck too thin?

I thinkmax effort is a relative term. To me if that's the head you have max effort is making the most with it you can. If max effort was solely dependent on parts selection and budget we would all be in trouble. Compression doesn't directly cost anymore to run 13/1 to 15/1, a custom grind isn't priced $$$/ lift and duration, and should be determined by cylinder head flow volume and characteristics.IMO a camshaft should have lift numbers approaching or exceeding max flow numbers and lash and flex should be taken into account. Max effort is getting every last hp out of what you have regardless.

I think max effort is a relative term. To me if that's the head you have max effort is making the most with it you can.QUOTE;

/\ CORRECT, as i was thinking you already had this head and were building an engine.

I agree unless your running pump gas it should have as much compression as possible, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

Barney wrote:I agree unless your running pump gas it should have as much compression as possible, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

There becomes a point where piston dome topography hinders ignition, (also sometimes overlap scavenging), and power output goes DOWN with added compression.

Up until that point ... more compression is a good thing for power.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:I agree unless your running pump gas it should have as much compression as possible, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

There becomes a point where piston dome topography hinders ignition, (also sometimes overlap scavenging), and power output goes DOWN with added compression.

Up until that point ... more compression is a good thing for power.

By possible, I should have said beneficial, my point is 13/1 is not max effort, nor is a camshaft that doesn't take full advantage of your cylinder head, or a carb that's too small, or a converter that's too tight. Max effort should take full advantage of every component that's all. You build engines for a living if a customer came in and said I want to make as much power as I can and go as fast as possible with the budget I have what would be your goal? (serious question)

Barney wrote:Theres a lot of guys that run 10 bolt heads with compression in that neighborhood with good results. I would agree a 18 bolt would be beneficial, but not everyone has them. If you have a cylinder head already whether it be edelbrock, or otherwise you gotta do what's necessary to get the most out of it. I know of a 508 that makes north of 800 hp NA and is set up for spray and has an iron head, and the only head gasket issue hes had was fuel related. I'm also curious whether your speaking of the deck itself.

You're stating my case for me, but I don't know if you're understanding my point. Yes, at 15.5:1 I'd much rather have an iron DOVE-C or DOOE-R 10 bolt head holding the head gasket,,,,,,,,than a lightweight alum. 10 bolt head such as the Edelbrocks or others. I'm speaking in terms of the ridigity of the deck surface, the strength, and the design structure of the head.

I agree that one should take what they have in terms of parts, and make the most out of it they can. However, I just got finished repairing a set of heads that broke while making a pass at the NMRA Finals in Bowling Green. I'm a firm believier that in order to finish first, first one must be able to finish the race. In this case and many others, it doesn't make any difference if a guy makes 2700 hp or 700 hp. The owner himself told me that they had quit testing because they knew they were going to blow something up on every pass. So "max effort" to me, should be a horsepower trade-off to some degree, just in order to go 6 or 7 rounds what ever the case may be. I'm simply warning people, that in real life Edelbrocks at 15.5:1 ain't going to hold a head gasket very long.

Charlie

My ultimate goal would be to satisfy THAT customer while trying to steer him down the correct path to reach his wanted end result.

c.evans wrote:

Barney wrote:Theres a lot of guys that run 10 bolt heads with compression in that neighborhood with good results. I would agree a 18 bolt would be beneficial, but not everyone has them. If you have a cylinder head already whether it be edelbrock, or otherwise you gotta do what's necessary to get the most out of it. I know of a 508 that makes north of 800 hp NA and is set up for spray and has an iron head, and the only head gasket issue hes had was fuel related. I'm also curious whether your speaking of the deck itself.

You're stating my case for me, but I don't know if you're understanding my point. Yes, at 15.5:1 I'd much rather have an iron DOVE-C or DOOE-R 10 bolt head holding the head gasket,,,,,,,,than a lightweight alum. 10 bolt head such as the Edelbrocks or others. I'm speaking in terms of the ridigity of the deck surface, the strength, and the design structure of the head.

I agree that one should take what they have in terms of parts, and make the most out of it they can. However, I just got finished repairing a set of heads that broke while making a pass at the NMRA Finals in Bowling Green. I'm a firm believier that in order to finish first, first one must be able to finish the race. In this case and many others, it doesn't make any difference if a guy makes 2700 hp or 700 hp. The owner himself told me that they had quit testing because they knew they were going to blow something up on every pass. So "max effort" to me, should be a horsepower trade-off to some degree, just in order to go 6 or 7 rounds what ever the case may be. I'm simply warning people, that in real life Edelbrocks at 15.5:1 ain't going to hold a head gasket very long.

Charlie

I gotcha, by max effort I don't mean time bomb either, just the most out of given parts. I don't know much about edelbrock heads, am I to assume the same would be true for all the stock style aluminum castings I.E. SCJ, P51, TFS, BT?

rmcomprandy wrote:My ultimate goal would be to satisfy THAT customer while trying to steer him down the correct path to reach his wanted end result.

Very smooth.

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:I agree unless your running pump gas it should have as much compression as possible, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

There becomes a point where piston dome topography hinders ignition, (also sometimes overlap scavenging), and power output goes DOWN with added compression.

Up until that point ... more compression is a good thing for power.

that is true.

now let me take barneys post a little different, looking at it a different way.....and this is not just for randy,its for anyone

If a guy walked into your shop and asked for and engine to be built,and had nothing for parts,no block ,heads, and you were starting with an engine stand and thats it.

he wants max effort n.a. power,you have to do carb to pan, he say's drag car,thats it, he'll gear ir as he needs,etc etc. then he hands you 10,000 grand,and says that's all you get, call me when its done. he say's your the engine builder you use what ever parts you want.

Question is...........what kind of FLYWHEEL POWER are you going to hand him back for 10,000?

This is what I like about this site. This thread started out as a fairly simple question, and has morphed into a philosophical debate. On of the biggest assets here is not only the level of knowledge here, but also the number of members that possess it, and the point of view are almost always different. Sure a lot of threads run way off track, but how many times is misinformation spread, not often. Disagreement spawns innovation.

The Edelbrock deck is .625 the same as the SCJ, P-51,A-429, TFS Street, & Blue Thunder. I've seen several pulling trucks with Edelbrock CJ's at 15-1 with no problems.

Speaking to dome height. If you have a 562 CI engine you aren't going to have a lot of dome even with a conventional Cobra Jet style head.

Gary Blair wrote:The Edelbrock deck is .625 the same as the SCJ, P-51,A-429, TFS Street, & Blue Thunder. I've seen several pulling trucks with Edelbrock CJ's at 15-1 with no problems.

Speaking to dome height. If you have a 562 CI engine you aren't going to have a lot of dome even with a conventional Cobra Jet style head.

Can't be....

If 562 inches wasn't capable of 900 hp I'd burn it JMO. Is that still what's being talked about?

BOSS 429 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:I agree unless your running pump gas it should have as much compression as possible, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

There becomes a point where piston dome topography hinders ignition, (also sometimes overlap scavenging), and power output goes DOWN with added compression.

Up until that point ... more compression is a good thing for power.

that is true.

now let me take barneys post a little different, looking at it a different way.....and this is not just for randy,its for anyone

If a guy walked into your shop and asked for and engine to be built,and had nothing for parts,no block ,heads, and you were starting with an engine stand and thats it.

he wants max effort n.a. power,you have to do carb to pan, he say's drag car,thats it, he'll gear ir as he needs,etc etc. then he hands you 10,000 grand,and says that's all you get, call me when its done. he say's your the engine builder you use what ever parts you want.

Question is...........what kind of FLYWHEEL POWER are you going to hand him back for 10,000?

Realistically ... I really don't know.
A lot would depend upon the life expectancy of the end product.
You can make a whole bunch of power with marginal, (in strength and endurance contingency), parts however, would THAT customer still be satisfied when he brings it back in a basket much sooner than he expects.
One needs to visualize ALL the avenues ahead; then give it your best shot.

That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

Barney wrote:That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

The last line of Rich's post is the question simply about money spent and it says nothing about reliability. RELIABILITY is totally subjective to different people.

The question CAN'T be answered truthfully by anybody without actually KNOWING the expectations of the engine other than FLYWHEEL POWER. It can only be "food for thought".

Remember, part of that 10 grand is labor so, what are you willing to give away for free.

rmcomprandy wrote:

BOSS 429 wrote:

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:I agree unless your running pump gas it should have as much compression as possible, but that's just my opinion I could be wrong.

There becomes a point where piston dome topography hinders ignition, (also sometimes overlap scavenging), and power output goes DOWN with added compression.

Up until that point ... more compression is a good thing for power.

that is true.

now let me take barneys post a little different, looking at it a different way.....and this is not just for randy,its for anyone

If a guy walked into your shop and asked for and engine to be built,and had nothing for parts,no block ,heads, and you were starting with an engine stand and thats it.

he wants max effort n.a. power,you have to do carb to pan, he say's drag car,thats it, he'll gear ir as he needs,etc etc. then he hands you 10,000 grand,and says that's all you get, call me when its done. he say's your the engine builder you use what ever parts you want.

Question is...........what kind of FLYWHEEL POWER are you going to hand him back for 10,000?

Realistically ... I really don't know.
A lot would depend upon the life expectancy of the end product.
You can make a whole bunch of power with marginal, (in strength and endurance contingency), parts however, would THAT customer still be satisfied when he brings it back in a basket much sooner than he expects.
One needs to visualize ALL the avenues ahead; then give it your best shot.

I am going to take a stab here, If I was handed $10,000 for that kind of build I would do like the previous motor I had. That way he could have money left over for a few trick parts to add to the motor for the track. I only had about $6,500 in mine. I could have pushed it more but it still would not have affected my reliability.. JMO.

I think having a motor I build needs to last longer that a race season without blowing up and then people start to talk about how your engine techinques are.

Appreciate the discussion; especially the hypothetical situation about someone handing you $10,000. So what is the max that could be expected to live through a season with "conventional" heads and a stock block bore configuration? On a related note, what is the flow difference of a max ported Victor vs TFS Mafia?

Further, some of the NMCA folks define A460's as "conventional heads". Does this give further potential with the bore limit of a stock block?

Barney wrote:That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

I just went to records and looked-up something like that from the past.

A 520 engine, (production block, 4.470" bore & 4.140" stroke with "out of the box" A heads from FRPP ... the guy had nothing and spent $9,462.00 when he walked out the door; (not counting money spent for one day dyno time paid to the dyno facility).
That engine made 872 horsepower. I don't have the dyno sheet here; it was 2003.
The engine is still in his bracket car ,(or was at the end of last season) and I have freshened it with rings and bearings in 2009. The full bodied Thunderbird runs somewhere in the 8's NA so, it is not as fast as the horsepower should dictate. However, he is totally happy.
THAT is what I really like; a smile on a customer's face.

some can do more with less, some can do less with more.........................

rmcomprandy wrote:

Barney wrote:That's not an answer I believe the question is how much reliable horsepower would leave your shop for 10k using any parts (used, new, whatever).I don't think he said could you build a dyno queen, or time bomb.

I just went to records and looked-up something like that from the past.

A 520 engine, (production block, 4.470" bore & 4.140" stroke with "out of the box" A heads from FRPP ... the guy had nothing and spent $9,462.00 when he walked out the door; (not counting money spent for one day dyno time paid to the dyno facility).
That engine made 872 horsepower. I don't have the dyno sheet here; it was 2003.
The engine is still in his bracket car ,(or was at the end of last season) and I have freshened it with rings and bearings in 2009. The full bodied Thunderbird runs somewhere in the 8's NA so, it is not as fast as the horsepower should dictate. However, he is totally happy.
THAT is what I really like; a smile on a customer's face.

I would say that's a successful build 870+hp under 10k and still together. That's exactly what it should be.

Gary Blair wrote:The Edelbrock deck is .625 the same as the SCJ, P-51,A-429, TFS Street, & Blue Thunder. I've seen several pulling trucks with Edelbrock CJ's at 15-1 with no problems.

Speaking to dome height. If you have a 562 CI engine you aren't going to have a lot of dome even with a conventional Cobra Jet style head.

Ky , Jon and Blake both run high comp deals with there p-51 ?