Question For TEA About Trick Flow Heads
06-23-2006, 09:59 PM
#1
Question For TEA About Trick Flow Heads Below are pictures of three combustion chambers...two by TEA.
The first is Jon Kaase's Pontiac from the Engine Masters Challenge. I believe it looks like his combustion chambers from the prior year's CHI Cleveland head, after he welded it up and shaped. Kaase was a top runner for three consecutive years with two wins..
The next is a TEA prepared Trick Flow R CNC head from a Fast Ford and Mustangs comparison test. To me at least, it looks so similar to the Kaase head that I am hard pressed to see any difference. This head won that test beating an AFR head (sorry Tony) in spite of giving away 7/10ths of a point of compression.
The last picture is the TEA Trick Flow LS1 heads from JNorris's post on this forum. While parts of it looks similar to the other two, why is it so different around the plug? On the others, their is definite peanut around the plug, which is decisively on the exhaust side. On the LS1 it seems to be kind of toward the exhaust side.
Why the difference with this newest and latest head?
Thanks,
David
P.S.
I copied, cropped and color corrected the pictures to fit better on this post.
The first is Jon Kaase's Pontiac from the Engine Masters Challenge. I believe it looks like his combustion chambers from the prior year's CHI Cleveland head, after he welded it up and shaped. Kaase was a top runner for three consecutive years with two wins..
The next is a TEA prepared Trick Flow R CNC head from a Fast Ford and Mustangs comparison test. To me at least, it looks so similar to the Kaase head that I am hard pressed to see any difference. This head won that test beating an AFR head (sorry Tony) in spite of giving away 7/10ths of a point of compression.
The last picture is the TEA Trick Flow LS1 heads from JNorris's post on this forum. While parts of it looks similar to the other two, why is it so different around the plug? On the others, their is definite peanut around the plug, which is decisively on the exhaust side. On the LS1 it seems to be kind of toward the exhaust side.
Why the difference with this newest and latest head?
Thanks,
David
P.S.
I copied, cropped and color corrected the pictures to fit better on this post.
06-24-2006, 03:31 PM
#4
"Dual quench"???
I didn't want to cloud the thread with different vendors. And that was easy because I had an example of a TEA head that was similar to the Kaase head. Also note, the TEA TF head dominator that Ford 427 comparison.
Your combustion camber is similar but different from the TEA TF head. That head may have its own set of combustion chamber questions.
I didn't want to cloud the thread with different vendors. And that was easy because I had an example of a TEA head that was similar to the Kaase head. Also note, the TEA TF head dominator that Ford 427 comparison.
Your combustion camber is similar but different from the TEA TF head. That head may have its own set of combustion chamber questions.
Last edited by DavidNJ; 06-24-2006 at 04:12 PM.
Trending Topics
06-27-2006, 04:09 AM
#9
Wow, just when I thought no one paid much attention to anything of relevance I get a killer question like this. I am hesitant to post a reply because I will simply be educating my competition at the same time, but maybe the competition might offer me a job. 
As you "wrap" the chamber around the intake valve, which is effectively what is being done with the TWR, it has several pros but one con. The first benefit is that it increases the "radial distribution of air around the circumference of the valve". As you increase this you generally increase the airflow as well, because good airflow at all lift points is simply this good distribution. Meaning if you take a valve and check the velocity at the seat angle of the valve every 45 degrees, the more even this velocity the better the airflow at all lift points. Consequently, when a port "stalls" it is simply a gross misdistribution of airflow. For example, people say that when a port stalls the air is detaching from the short turn. While this is OK in theory, this in NOT what is going on. The Ford TFS TW heads for example when in port stall actually has most of the airflow at the short turn side of the port towards the dead center of the chamber. I would like to reiterate that good flow at all lift points generally makes more power. I wrote the article about "area under the curve" that goes into this, which was published in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords around 1997, although sadly the article is no longer complete, it is still on our web site and is worth trying to read and put into practice. Here is the link http://www.totalengineairflow.com/tech/truthabout.php
The next benefit is simple wet flow tests on a flow bench look better with this type of chamber.
The final benefit is "hydrocarbon pull over" is reduced which reduces emissions and increases fuel mileage....generally. This "hydrocarbon pullover" is simply the pulling of fuel out of the intake port and into the exhaust port during overlap without burning it. The hydrocarbon pullover is a theory I came up with, but seems to work. It is also my theory that under scavenging the chamber leaves more spent hydrocarbon residue in the chamber. If you look at a TW chamber straight off the dyno the chamber is very black in comparison to other chambers.
The con to this (TW) chamber is reduced torque. So if you think about what is going on during overlap, anything that helps pull air and/or fuel from the intake port into the exhaust port (such as a flat across the quench) increases torque..... at the possible cost of emissions. And anything that inhibits pulling air and/or fuel from the intake port (such as the ledge in the TW head) reduces torque...while generally helping emissions.
Since you are a thinker, here is something to ponder on. All of this discussion is focused on the chambers effect on airflow and what goes on during overlap. The chamber has a much more important job when the spark plug fires. This is why I think a topnotch explosives person who is excellent at "shaping" charges could design you a more powerful chamber then the average cylinder head porter.
So now that I have shined some light on this one tiny aspect of the chamber I have some interesting news. TFS recently dyno tested their new Ford TWR 225, which is basically the same head we use to sell that won the 427 shootout, against their new High Port 225 and the AFR 225. It should be no surprise that the TWR 225 was 20 HP better then the AFR 225, however, remember the High Port head that was in the 427 article and was 50 HP behind the TWR 225? Well, the new TFS 225 High Port made as much HP as the TWR 225 but MORE TORQUE. Consequently the chamber of the High Port looks about like the chamber of the TFS LS1 head.
One more tid bit of info. The Ford TFS TW 205 makes almost 540 HP on a hyd roller pump gas 347 (4.030 x 3.400), the TFS 215 LS1 makes 535 HP but makes 30 lb ft MORE TORQUE. We all know there is a stroke advantage with the LS1, but some of this torque advantage is in the chamber shape.
The very last detail I would like to share on the new TFS LS1 head is in independent dyno testing at Westech, simply switching a stock LS1 head for the unmilled TFS yielded 52 HP, the highest gain they have ever seen simply swapping heads.
I know this is a lot of info to digest and most people won't even understand what I have said, but to those that did, congrats.
As you "wrap" the chamber around the intake valve, which is effectively what is being done with the TWR, it has several pros but one con. The first benefit is that it increases the "radial distribution of air around the circumference of the valve". As you increase this you generally increase the airflow as well, because good airflow at all lift points is simply this good distribution. Meaning if you take a valve and check the velocity at the seat angle of the valve every 45 degrees, the more even this velocity the better the airflow at all lift points. Consequently, when a port "stalls" it is simply a gross misdistribution of airflow. For example, people say that when a port stalls the air is detaching from the short turn. While this is OK in theory, this in NOT what is going on. The Ford TFS TW heads for example when in port stall actually has most of the airflow at the short turn side of the port towards the dead center of the chamber. I would like to reiterate that good flow at all lift points generally makes more power. I wrote the article about "area under the curve" that goes into this, which was published in Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords around 1997, although sadly the article is no longer complete, it is still on our web site and is worth trying to read and put into practice. Here is the link http://www.totalengineairflow.com/tech/truthabout.php
The next benefit is simple wet flow tests on a flow bench look better with this type of chamber.
The final benefit is "hydrocarbon pull over" is reduced which reduces emissions and increases fuel mileage....generally. This "hydrocarbon pullover" is simply the pulling of fuel out of the intake port and into the exhaust port during overlap without burning it. The hydrocarbon pullover is a theory I came up with, but seems to work. It is also my theory that under scavenging the chamber leaves more spent hydrocarbon residue in the chamber. If you look at a TW chamber straight off the dyno the chamber is very black in comparison to other chambers.
The con to this (TW) chamber is reduced torque. So if you think about what is going on during overlap, anything that helps pull air and/or fuel from the intake port into the exhaust port (such as a flat across the quench) increases torque..... at the possible cost of emissions. And anything that inhibits pulling air and/or fuel from the intake port (such as the ledge in the TW head) reduces torque...while generally helping emissions.
Since you are a thinker, here is something to ponder on. All of this discussion is focused on the chambers effect on airflow and what goes on during overlap. The chamber has a much more important job when the spark plug fires. This is why I think a topnotch explosives person who is excellent at "shaping" charges could design you a more powerful chamber then the average cylinder head porter.
So now that I have shined some light on this one tiny aspect of the chamber I have some interesting news. TFS recently dyno tested their new Ford TWR 225, which is basically the same head we use to sell that won the 427 shootout, against their new High Port 225 and the AFR 225. It should be no surprise that the TWR 225 was 20 HP better then the AFR 225, however, remember the High Port head that was in the 427 article and was 50 HP behind the TWR 225? Well, the new TFS 225 High Port made as much HP as the TWR 225 but MORE TORQUE. Consequently the chamber of the High Port looks about like the chamber of the TFS LS1 head.
One more tid bit of info. The Ford TFS TW 205 makes almost 540 HP on a hyd roller pump gas 347 (4.030 x 3.400), the TFS 215 LS1 makes 535 HP but makes 30 lb ft MORE TORQUE. We all know there is a stroke advantage with the LS1, but some of this torque advantage is in the chamber shape.
The very last detail I would like to share on the new TFS LS1 head is in independent dyno testing at Westech, simply switching a stock LS1 head for the unmilled TFS yielded 52 HP, the highest gain they have ever seen simply swapping heads.
I know this is a lot of info to digest and most people won't even understand what I have said, but to those that did, congrats.
06-27-2006, 10:42 AM
#10
Teching In
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brian,
1) Will Trick Flow "Cast" their new CNC LS1 head in the future, and get the price down?
2) How much hp will the new TFS TW head make over the LS6 head, in my 2002 Z06, if I mill her for 11:1 compression?
3) I ran a TFS-TW head on my 1991LX Mustang from 1995 to 2004, and it ran flawlessly, picking up 75hp at 6000rpm (50hp at 5500rpm peak).
Thanks
1) Will Trick Flow "Cast" their new CNC LS1 head in the future, and get the price down?
2) How much hp will the new TFS TW head make over the LS6 head, in my 2002 Z06, if I mill her for 11:1 compression?
3) I ran a TFS-TW head on my 1991LX Mustang from 1995 to 2004, and it ran flawlessly, picking up 75hp at 6000rpm (50hp at 5500rpm peak).
Thanks
06-27-2006, 12:43 PM
#11
Brian thanks for your answer. It's interesting... not what I was expecting.
To recap, focusing on the intake side, the peanut shape creates a more even distribution of flow around the valve and reduces scavenging the intake into the exhaust. However, it also reduces the benefits of that scavenging in extending the power band below the power peak.
When looking at the chambers, I would have thought the main benefit was focusing initial combustion over the exhaust valve, where the higher combustion chamber temperatures promote better combustion. The more centrally located plug and more open chamber would seem to go against that.
How do the bsfc's of the different chambers compare? Don't current race heads still use a full peanut with exhaust focused plug? How does the optimal ignition timing compare? How do the peak combustion pressures compare, if you are measuring them?
Thanks again,
David
To recap, focusing on the intake side, the peanut shape creates a more even distribution of flow around the valve and reduces scavenging the intake into the exhaust. However, it also reduces the benefits of that scavenging in extending the power band below the power peak.
When looking at the chambers, I would have thought the main benefit was focusing initial combustion over the exhaust valve, where the higher combustion chamber temperatures promote better combustion. The more centrally located plug and more open chamber would seem to go against that.
How do the bsfc's of the different chambers compare? Don't current race heads still use a full peanut with exhaust focused plug? How does the optimal ignition timing compare? How do the peak combustion pressures compare, if you are measuring them?
Thanks again,
David
Last edited by DavidNJ; 06-27-2006 at 01:08 PM.
06-27-2006, 05:03 PM
#12
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
When looking at the chambers, I would have thought the main benefit was focusing initial combustion over the exhaust valve, where the higher combustion chamber temperatures promote better combustion. The more centrally located plug and more open chamber would seem to go against that.
Originally Posted by DavidNJ
How do the bsfc's of the different chambers compare? Don't current race heads still use a full peanut with exhaust focused plug? How does the optimal ignition timing compare? How do the peak combustion pressures compare, if you are measuring them?
Full race heads are not always a peanut shape, I have seen Pro Stock heads that were not, but generally the more shallow the valve angle the more peanut shape they become.
Once again, the overall efficiency of the port/chamber determines the total timing needed, as our TW stuff is 28 degrees, our LS1 stuff is 28 degrees, and the AFR 205 seemed to need more, which I feel has little to do with the chamber shape. We are not measuring peak pressures, but the peak torque was highest with the TFS head in our testing.
06-27-2006, 07:41 PM
#13
Originally Posted by Brian Tooley
The very last detail I would like to share on the new TFS LS1 head is in independent dyno testing at Westech, simply switching a stock LS1 head for the unmilled TFS yielded 52 HP, the highest gain they have ever seen simply swapping heads.
Edelbrocks 65cc combustion chamber and stock 15 degree valve angle:
Last edited by gollum; 06-27-2006 at 10:25 PM.
06-27-2006, 11:27 PM
#14
Originally Posted by Brian Tooley
Once again, the overall efficiency of the port/chamber determines the total timing needed, as our TW stuff is 28 degrees, our LS1 stuff is 28 degrees, and the AFR 205 seemed to need more, which I feel has little to do with the chamber shape. We are not measuring peak pressures, but the peak torque was highest with the TFS head in our testing.
The timing is also a function of where the piston is relative to the spark timing. The longer rod, longer stroke setup in the LS1 along with the smaller bore is going to want much less ignition lead than a setup with a .130" larger bore .222" shorter stroke and .799" shorter rod. In the extreme example of that a very efficent F1 setup has a 50+ deg ignition lead at idle!
I also think that a LS1 intake and port length and relative high VE% has a hella lot more to do with the absolute TQ numbers compared to a healthy 347 SBF.
I do like your "hydrocarbon pull over" theory. I've been thinking about that for some time and it's good so to see other guys out there doing the same thing!
Bret
Last edited by SStrokerAce; 06-28-2006 at 05:44 AM.
06-28-2006, 01:18 AM
#15
FormerVendor
Originally Posted by SStrokerAce
Brian,
The timing is also a function of where the piston is relative to the spark timing. The longer rod, longer stroke setup in the LS1 along with the smaller bore is going to want much less ignition lead than a setup with a .222" shorter stroke and .799" longer rod. In the extreme example of that a very efficent F1 setup has a 50+ deg ignition lead at idle!
I also think that a LS1 intake and port length and relative high VE% has a hella lot more to do with the absolute TQ numbers compared to a healthy 347 SBF.
I do like your "hydrocarbon pull over" theory. I've been thinking about that for some time and it's good so to see other guys out there doing the same thing!
Bret
The timing is also a function of where the piston is relative to the spark timing. The longer rod, longer stroke setup in the LS1 along with the smaller bore is going to want much less ignition lead than a setup with a .222" shorter stroke and .799" longer rod. In the extreme example of that a very efficent F1 setup has a 50+ deg ignition lead at idle!
I also think that a LS1 intake and port length and relative high VE% has a hella lot more to do with the absolute TQ numbers compared to a healthy 347 SBF.
I do like your "hydrocarbon pull over" theory. I've been thinking about that for some time and it's good so to see other guys out there doing the same thing!
Bret
I agree on the intakes as the LS1 intake manifolds are awsome in the midrange but some of the Ford long runners are good too.
I do see where the midrange scavenging that occurs might be slightly reduced but at higher rpm the reversion might also be reduced too so I see Brian's point there about that style chamber helping hp at the higher end and maybe not as much in the midrange too.
