Tfs Top End... Evolved???

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by jaketuff, Jun 17, 2013.

  1. I haven't dyno'd the two combos back to back NA. but years ago two of my buddies had 95 GTs. both had tremecs, 9:1 306s, F cams. both had vortech s trims on them. one had TFS TWs with a decent valvejob and an out of the box track heat intake. this one was making 13-14lbs of boost with a 2.75 pulley. then we had the car with the gt40 and another ported gt4o lower. it had a 2.95 pulley on it and made 11-12 lbs. on the same day, same dyno tuned combos the gt40 setup made 462 and the TFS combo made 478 with 2 more lbs of boost. so a difference of 16 rwhp. how much of that is boost and how much of that is the tfs being superior is up for debate.

    for reference, I have also worked on Kirk Jacksons bone stock longblock 24k mile 93 cobra back in the days before it was featured in MMFF. the lower had never been off the motor. with an s trim and a 2.95 pulley it made 12lbs of boost and averaged around mid 440 rwhp. so between that and the TFS combo the TFS kit made a little over 30 rwhp over a STOCK 93 cobra motor that was making 2lbs less boost, as well as the TFS combo above having the benefit of a larger cam. so im not really sure where you are coming up with 50-70 hp difference with the TFS package on an NA 302/306? can you please cite specific cars that you have worked on?
  2. The first half of your reply, I'll say are right, it's debatable how much the power each vehicle made was boost and how much was due to a superior head casting. You'll admit though, boost is a great equalizer when it comes to making a head that would otherwise perform at sub par levels in a N/A application, seem much stronger when forced induction is added. Pumping 12psi into an engine does a great job of masking low lift flow and velocity figures from an otherwise inferior head.....would you not agree? I'd love to see some comparative figures for the two heads in N/A trim at all levels, not just at peak. Peak flow figures are only half the equation and I'm certain you know that.....just as you know different dyno's, different days. It's all relevant.

    I'm not saying the Trick Flow's might not need a little work out of the box. Heck....I can't think of one aftermarket head that doesn't need a little "help" in one area or another. Whether it's a better valve job, or upgraded hardware, fixing some casting flash, etc. But the same can be said for a set of off the block Explorer heads as well. The difference is, the Explorer heads need help in all area's. Casting flash is abundant, the stock Ford valve job sucks and the entire valve train needs an overhaul. Time and we haven't looked into port work yet.

    As for how many car's I've worked it really relevant? If I told you I worked on Jerry Eckhoff's '75 Corvette, or Ian Sears 82' Fox body and '78 Fairmont, would it be any more, or less impressive to you? I honestly don't see any relevance in the question other than what I assume is an attempt by yourself to discredit my point? If that's the case....put away the tape measure man, it isn't a contest. I'm sure you're every bit is good as you think you are. As for the top end don't need to take my word for it. There are literally hundred, upon hundreds of dyno sheet's floating around out there that confirm my figures. It sucks that your buddies car only made 270rwhp with a Trick Flow top end. That's certainly on the low side....but you talk as though it's also the norm, which if you've worked on as many engines as you seem to insinuate, I'm sure you know it isn't. I've seen Dyno sheet's for GT40 cars that have barely cracked 250hp!?! Does that mean they all suck? Of course not! Generally GT40 combo cars are generally making in the 270-320hp range on a stock bottom end, depending on the supporting parts. I've seen plenty of trick flow top ends dyno within the 320-370hp range using the same parameters. That falls well within the 50-70hp (or approx. 40-60 if you want to talk wheel horsepower) difference I quoted above. I've seen a few GT40 combo's make a little more, but 9/10 times they've also added compression, or displacement to the mix....something that works equally as well with any top end combination. And again...different dyno's, different days.

    ....and you still didn't tell me why you had such a hate on for the Trick Flow Track Heat? Does a great job on my least as far as the SOTP meter goes. Pulls all the way to the rev limiter on the stock tach with my breathed on GT40X's and XE274HR? :shrug:
  3. The only other dyno numbers I have with a TFS kit was on a 8.3:1 331ci, stage 2 can and the TH upper...345rwhp can't remember the tq. Tuned with a PMS and the motor was setup for a blower (reason comp was lower)

    Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk 2
  4. what you are missing about boost is that its not really an equalizer, because for a given cross section and port shape, at some point the port will get turbulent and stop flowing. boost does make airspeed but the smaller cross section is actually more of a problem. and the longer runner makes the problem worse. the simple fact that the cars made similar power and the 'better combo' made 2 more lbs of boost tells me that track heat intake is no better than a gt40/cobra with a ported lower. maybe they have changed the intake since then, but the results I saw were less than impressive. as far as low lift, if you have a port with good low lift you have a port that will probably have reversion issues. its not a good thing. these centrificals didn't start pulling until over 3500. as far as flow #, the TFS did mid 250s, we never did flow the gt40s. but IMO the intake was the restriction on the TFS headed motor because im quite sure the TFS head flowed more. yet with 2 more lbs of boost made less than 20 hp more.

    on the sn's above they have valve jobs, bowl blends quality valvetrain ect. im gonna say both need an equal amount of work in order to run. actually I take that back, the ford valves are decent. the valves in the $1k summit heads are garbage and needs to be upgraded. but if you only pay $300 for the gt40s you have saved a lot of $ you can use on the rest of the car. as far as casting flash that's debatable. both will need valvejobs and blend. but other than that they can both run hard without any other work. both can run 11s on a pump gas all motor 302/306 in a good car. if you are going to run all out the TFS will run better. but if you are going to cap yourself at $2800 or whatever the summit package costs, you can go further with the GT40s because you can spend $ on the rest of the car with the savings.

    you were saying the difference in power between the TFS and gt40s was 50-70 hp. I was just wondering where you came up with those numbers. I have done TFS heads on several friends stock shortblocks, with a valvejob and bowl blend topped with a port matched gt40/cobra they all made between 300-320 rwhp and have run between 7.50s and 7.70s in the 1/8th on motor. so I know the heads work, at least when they are right. it seems to me that the track heat intake is no better than a port matched gt40/cobra/explorer. which again is not a great intake, but at least they are cheap. its not that im down on them like they don't run, i just think there is better stuff out there for the same or less $.

  5. Hey Brian... agree with you on some points.. For the average guy that wants to just bolt on a top end kit and not have to piece things together, that kit is the most complete out there and will yield decent results. It's a nice kit that has most of everything needed and does save you time and effort.

    Only thing I was trying to say is for guys that have been around and know how to assemble a package on their own, can probably get similar if not better results for less money. Yeah I know comparing used to new isn't apples to apples, but it comes down to hp for the $$$ spent. My car doesn't know the difference between the used parts and new. IF you know what to look for, are judicious, and patient, there are many deals out there. I saw a TMOSS ported explorer intake for $150 that outflows the TFS for sale on CL yesterday and a set of new TW 170's for $900.

    I'd probably be very happy with the TFS kit, just not for the $2500. All depends on how deep your wallet is. For me, I'm way past the age of racing the car so even the 50hp isn't going to keep me up at night.
    clement likes this.
  6. You don't even need to get the two of them on a flowbench to know that one doesn't fly. I'm sure whomever was trying to sell it was claiming as much, but even Tom will admit that claim is a bit of an exaggeration. One only has to hold the two lower intakes side by side and look at the difference to see that the Trick Flow is capable of flowing a ton more air. The Explorer just doesn't have the surface area capable of supporting the volume.

    Don't get me wrong guys. I have zero issues with buying used parts. Aside from my rotating assembly, almost every other part on my car with the exception of a few of the ignition and fuel system items (some stuff, you should just break down and buy new) was put together with used parts. As the matte of fact, I've probably only got less than $2,500 into my entire long block and that's only as high as it is because I broke down and bought a stroker rotating assembly.

    I was just getting the impression that the Trick Flow Top end Kit was getting trashed simply because people were looking at the horsepower figures and then relating them directly to the dollar amount. A person could put together their own Trick Flow package for less by leaving out a few supporting, or cosmetic components, and/or buying used from the get go. That would certainly lower the over all cost and bring the bang for the buck ratio much closer to a used GT40 top end territory.

    I was really close to going with an Explorer top end myself, but when it came to heads...the GT40 irons just didn't get the job done after all was said and done for a cheap enough price. Not when you can get used aluminum castings for just a couple hundred dollars more. and gain both a performance and a weight advantage. To some guys, a couple hundred dollars, is still a couple hundred dollars....or they simply see getting an iron headed GT40 top end car to run fast as the type of challenge they want to partake in. That wasn't my cup of tea. As it is I already compromised with the GT40X heads, but I wanted a quality set of heads, that accepted all of the stock style hardware and these heads just happened to be in the right place and the right time, for the right price.

    As far as assembling a top end with brand new parts, I still believe the Trick Flow package is a nice top end for the money. Especially for a guy looking for a turn key running package and some visual pizazz to go with it. I challenge anyone to put together a similar top end package, with similar quality new components for much less. You're not going to run down John Force with it, but then the same can be said for the GT40 gear as well.

    Different strokes. :shrug:
  7. I like TFS heads, but they have to have a decent valvejob, a blend is nice and I think the valvesprings should be setup for the cam in the kit. I also don't know why they don't delete the pushrods because at this point damn near no one has a 302 block that hasn't been cut on. other than that I think its a good starting point. but for the $, if you know what you are doing you can do the same or better with garbage parts than an untouched TFS kit. now if you want to spend the $ and do the TFS kit right, it should haul ass.

    I am a bang for the buck guy. My buddy has a total of $4k from carb to pan in the Windsor we built this winter that is running 6.30s in the 1/8th on motor. we are going to change the cam and do a couple other things that will run up the bill in order to try to get it to go low 6s, but all in all its not a lot of $ for how hard it runs. that's why I pick apart combos and get down on hp per $.
  8. Pretty much all heads need a valve job and some spring work.

    Talking Aspirated gain vs naturally aspirated is apples to oranges, just too many variables.
    So is comparing a head that has been worked to a box stock head.
    We all know gt40p heads are cheap in their stock form, but remember they take a proprietary header ($200) and for sure need springs. Suddenly your $300 heads are now $600. Throw a valve job in there and you are in them at least $800.
    For $300 more you can buy a set of wedges nib. Are they perfect? No, but surely make more power than your $800 set of gt40p's.

    I've seen great heads make no power and crappy ones make decent power.
    But, it's like anything else, you have to play the odds, and the odds are that TW's will make around 300rwhp and the p's will make closer to 265rwhp.

    Let's not forget the 50lbs you save off the front end of the car either, that's a nice little bonus.

    Me personally i wouldn't put p's on my own car if you gave them to me for free.
    With a full weight street car, not set up specifically to drag race, they just don't make for a car that's all that quick and doing heads twice on the same engine is no fun, not to mention buying all the gaskets and fluids all over again.

    40rwhp on a fox is a pretty big difference and in a street race where you can't rely just on the traction of sticky tires, a drag suspension and a prepped surface, it plain old takes more power.
    So often people quote track times from these cars based on drag setup, then quote the numbers from newer cars from car and driver or motortrend showroom new.
    Not a fair way to compare things.
  9. same blower, same cam, same shortblock, same guy did both valve job and bowl blends, and the 'better' head/intake combo only made 16 rwhp more with 2 more lbs of boost! im going to have to disagree with you on relevance.

    that's a good point, but you don't have to have the special headers with the gt40s. and its not just a standard multi angle valvejob like it is to make the inlines run good. the TW needs to correct backcut angles to make it run. its the nature of the beast.

    you are absolutely correct with the above numbers and the mirrors what ive seen when stuff is right. my point is that 265rwhp the gt40s make will run low to mid 12s. in the same car the TWs, will run 11s. but people are spending the $ on the TWs that need work to go 12.90s! really? if that's the goal then you don't need a TW and can save $. if you said room to grow with the TW then yeah, by all means run the TW.

    its more like 35-40. but ok. although we just finished a clevor with heavy ass iron '71 4v closed chambers and it hasn't stopped it from running 6.30s in the 1/8th on motor within 5 passes of pulling it off the trailer for the first time. and the guys at bullet cams seem to think there is quite a bit more in it, so I wouldn't look upon the material as a deal breaker. to RACE, I would rather have a GT40 done right then a wrong head. do the tfs right and that's another story entirely.

    if the car isn't quick, the difference between those two heads alone isn't going to make a night and day difference.

    yeah, but without a valvejob and the springs setup right its not going to make 40 more rwhp. out of the box that package makes 270rwhp. make whatever excuses, but that's what it made. it ran [email protected] in the 1/8th as well. ive gotten gt40 stuff into the [email protected] in an almost identical car. so do you really think it was a faulty install? I was actually excited to see what it would do. that excitement went to disappointment after seeing the results. as ive said before to make the big extra power those thing still need work.

    my comparos aren't exactly what you would call dissimilar. but if that's why you want to say than whatever.