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?

HAPPY TO HELP

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.

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.

big motor

It absolutely is. Smaller cylinder is more efficient all things equal. So is a smaller valve as far a discharge coefficient

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 ...

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

IT SAID 44

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.

"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 ...

the 393 started as a 351 block

@@richardholdener1727 Many thanks for your prompt response, and clarification...

@@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.

$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.

Haha, I like the way you think !!

stock cam on a 4.8L, 5.3L and 6.0L

that lsa test video has been up for a while now

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).

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.

PLEASE SEE THE HEAD TESTS-I RAN TFS R HEADS BUT ON A BIGGER MOTOR

@@richardholdener1727 thank you soo much :o)

so how did it go

SHOULD BE DISH PISTONS AVAIL

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

CHECK OUT THE HEAD PORT VOLUME VIDEO

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?

Port size and configuration limits flow. Of any engine it is on so that is not feasible

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.

HAVE NEVER TESTED ONE

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

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! 😂😂😂

WE KNOW THE MOTOR MADE MORE POWER WITH THE EXACT SAME HEADS

NO SIR

I don't know those specs

FORD SHOULD LIST PLUGS FOR THAT HEAD

YES AND YES ON THE STOCK HEADS

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.

mid 3s

@@richardholdener1727 thanks man good to know!

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.

lot of modification

@@richardholdener1727 it should be possible lol but a lot of work

YES

all the way

yes

I need to work on my Avatar air bending

EVERY AFTER MARKET HEAD WAS DOWN IN POWER PER CFM

yes-with springs

@@richardholdener1727 And studs. and guide plates.

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

I have tested many Brodix heads

A STOCK 2v HEAD DOES NOT FLOW WELL

@@richardholdener1727 ok well they are popular

stock 2V flows "good" up to about .35 lift. An experienced armature port job can increase the max flow and extend it out to about .55 . But the cost in headers, intake, mods to get the compression up, might make their utilization per dollar fruitless........except they would sound cool. If there was such a thing as a boss 302 2v intake, I would try it at least.

@@richardholdener1727 I mean modern heads like CHI or Trickflow

@@stuartwall8212 I mean CHI or Trickflow