trickflow 220 vs ported 243s
12-26-2016, 03:18 AM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
trickflow 220 vs ported 243s So I'm saving money for a pair of cylinder heads and the trickflows were my initial choice but they are pretty pricey at $1800 assembled and I'd need new springs anyway cause I don't think they support my cam.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/272309162142?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
I noticed these thompson ported 243s and I'm wondering if I'm better off spending my money with those? Or similarly priced ported 243s anyone recommends... They come with springs that support my cam and all I'd need is 1.7 rockers...
I have a 02 LQ4 with a Torquer v4 Cam installed already and my power goals are 450whp... i might not make that considering I don't have enough for a FAST 102, only a ls6 intake... let me know your thoughts thanks!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/272309162142?_trksid=p2060353.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT
I noticed these thompson ported 243s and I'm wondering if I'm better off spending my money with those? Or similarly priced ported 243s anyone recommends... They come with springs that support my cam and all I'd need is 1.7 rockers...
I have a 02 LQ4 with a Torquer v4 Cam installed already and my power goals are 450whp... i might not make that considering I don't have enough for a FAST 102, only a ls6 intake... let me know your thoughts thanks!
12-26-2016, 03:42 AM
#2
I think it boils down to whether or not you already have 243's or can get them very inexpensively. If not going with a aftermarket castings is never a bad option. Almost all though require you to use aftermarket rockers which tack on several hundred dollars more.
My buddy is in the same boat right now. His "budget build" H/C LQ4 swap with stock 243's turned into him ordering a High Ram and putting away money to send his 243's to AI for their 232cc/large valve combo. All in all he'll be in those heads for around $1700 before the trunion upgrade he did to his stock rockers. Since he's planning a 408 build in the future, it would have made more sense financially to go with an aftermarket 235cc head from the get-go.
My buddy is in the same boat right now. His "budget build" H/C LQ4 swap with stock 243's turned into him ordering a High Ram and putting away money to send his 243's to AI for their 232cc/large valve combo. All in all he'll be in those heads for around $1700 before the trunion upgrade he did to his stock rockers. Since he's planning a 408 build in the future, it would have made more sense financially to go with an aftermarket 235cc head from the get-go.
Last edited by That_One_Person; 12-26-2016 at 03:47 AM.
12-26-2016, 11:20 AM
#4
Originally Posted by big hammer
Either will support your 450 RWHP goal. If you ever stroke your engine both would be inadequate
12-26-2016, 03:54 PM
#5
I too am wondering.
If 390ci or under at what point do aftermarket heads play a bigger role. When do the stock heads become too restrictive, even with a dual spring and Trunion's.?
If 390ci or under at what point do aftermarket heads play a bigger role. When do the stock heads become too restrictive, even with a dual spring and Trunion's.?
12-26-2016, 04:16 PM
#6
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,452
Received 1,852 Likes
on
1,152 Posts
There's more to it than just port size or flow at 600 lift. I pretty much always recommend aftermarket castings. The raised ports and higher port efficiency are well worth it.
Generally aftermarket casting allow you to run less cam and still reach your goals
Generally aftermarket casting allow you to run less cam and still reach your goals
12-26-2016, 10:13 PM
#7
Im in the same boat except i got 243 for nothing, FRH wants $1200 for a 224cc CNC and full rebuild and springs that accommodate .660" lift, seems like it would be a good option for a hot LS1 but might fall short fort a all out LQ4 build should you decide to turn it up. HeliCoil on here built a bad *** LQ4 with ported 243 that made just under 600 hp at the crank.
Trending Topics
12-27-2016, 01:25 AM
#9
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I plan to rebuild the entire motor in a few years for a blown application, for now I'd just like a stout NA.. so those ported 243s I linked will be adequate to get me to my power goals of 450rwhp?? hoping for around 470-480 when I get a fast 102
12-27-2016, 08:23 AM
#10
A set of quality ported 243/799's are an excellent value.
In this test by Hotrod magazine a few years ago on a 408 the best ported 243's pretty much held their own against AFR & Trick Flow. Check the averages. They aren't too far off on the peaks either. Engine a suitable cam, 0.624 lift (with 1.7:1 rocker ratio), 239/247 duration (at 0.050), and a 114-degree lobe-separation angle. Ported AFR & Trick Flow would make more power but based on the artilce as cast isn't all that impressive compared to quality ported 243's. The as cast would have future potential the ported 243's would be pretty much at their potential. With that said this is one article and experience and testing are key to making good choices.
Full disclosure, my RS made 465 rwhp with TEA LS6 Stage 2.5's that Tooley touched up and a small 229/229 cam in a LS1 383. Bigger cam, bigger bore and supporting mods would make more power. I think of low 500's whp is more of the wall for ported 243/799 castings - 450 whp isn't.
Of course if $$$$ isn't an issue ported trick flow or afr's or mozzies etc choice.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp...head-test/amp/
In this test by Hotrod magazine a few years ago on a 408 the best ported 243's pretty much held their own against AFR & Trick Flow. Check the averages. They aren't too far off on the peaks either. Engine a suitable cam, 0.624 lift (with 1.7:1 rocker ratio), 239/247 duration (at 0.050), and a 114-degree lobe-separation angle. Ported AFR & Trick Flow would make more power but based on the artilce as cast isn't all that impressive compared to quality ported 243's. The as cast would have future potential the ported 243's would be pretty much at their potential. With that said this is one article and experience and testing are key to making good choices.
Full disclosure, my RS made 465 rwhp with TEA LS6 Stage 2.5's that Tooley touched up and a small 229/229 cam in a LS1 383. Bigger cam, bigger bore and supporting mods would make more power. I think of low 500's whp is more of the wall for ported 243/799 castings - 450 whp isn't.
Of course if $$$$ isn't an issue ported trick flow or afr's or mozzies etc choice.
https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp...head-test/amp/
12-27-2016, 10:07 AM
#12
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,452
Received 1,852 Likes
on
1,152 Posts
A set of quality ported 243/799's are an excellent value.
In this test by Hotrod magazine a few years ago on a 408 the best ported 243's pretty much held their own against AFR & Trick Flow. Check the averages.... Ported AFR & Trick Flow would make more power but based on the artilce as cast isn't all that impressive compared to quality ported 243's. The as cast would have future potential the ported 243's would be pretty much at their potential. With that said this is one article and experience and testing are key to making good choices.
In this test by Hotrod magazine a few years ago on a 408 the best ported 243's pretty much held their own against AFR & Trick Flow. Check the averages.... Ported AFR & Trick Flow would make more power but based on the artilce as cast isn't all that impressive compared to quality ported 243's. The as cast would have future potential the ported 243's would be pretty much at their potential. With that said this is one article and experience and testing are key to making good choices.
But, there is some question as to value and future proofing. For example, if I'm going to get a ported 243 set for 1700 or an as cast trick flow 220 for 1800, then it's no contest, and I go straight to the trickflows.
Most of the scenarios I see ported stock castings making big power are high revving. There's a phenomenal example in the dyno section of a 6.0 making 721 HP on ported LS3 heads -- at 8000 rpm. For every good running, high numbers 408 on stock castings I see, I see far more making numbers like 430/390.
12-28-2016, 07:48 AM
#13
Darth those are all good things to consider before making a selection. For what its worth, I picked up at set of fresh Lingenfelter Stage 2 243's for $1250 a few months ago. Saw another set last month for $1300. So if budget is an issue its very possible to be under $1700 for decent ported 243's.
If I had a set of aftermarket as cast heads, I would wait and save enough to have them ported before installing. Otherwise, its leaving a significant gain on table. Might as well get the full potential out of the parts and install them fully optimized. One exception might be with power adder applications the thicker aftermarket casting would be more durable ported or not.
Back in ancient times 2003-2005, correctly matched, installed & tuned quality ported 243 casting sets usually hit about 450 rwhp, sometimes a little more sometimes a little less. If sets ups are in the 430 or less range I wouldn't be too quick to suspect its automatically a cylinder head issue. I've seen a couple of cars with unported aftermarket castings and what appear to be all the correct supporting parts fall short of expectations and hit around 450 rwhp wall as well. Careful attention to detail, professionally checking every part before its install and correct install procedures go a long way to getting the desire results with any heads & cam install.
If budget allows then ported aftermarket castings
If I had a set of aftermarket as cast heads, I would wait and save enough to have them ported before installing. Otherwise, its leaving a significant gain on table. Might as well get the full potential out of the parts and install them fully optimized. One exception might be with power adder applications the thicker aftermarket casting would be more durable ported or not.
Back in ancient times 2003-2005, correctly matched, installed & tuned quality ported 243 casting sets usually hit about 450 rwhp, sometimes a little more sometimes a little less. If sets ups are in the 430 or less range I wouldn't be too quick to suspect its automatically a cylinder head issue. I've seen a couple of cars with unported aftermarket castings and what appear to be all the correct supporting parts fall short of expectations and hit around 450 rwhp wall as well. Careful attention to detail, professionally checking every part before its install and correct install procedures go a long way to getting the desire results with any heads & cam install.
If budget allows then ported aftermarket castings
12-28-2016, 08:30 AM
#14
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,452
Received 1,852 Likes
on
1,152 Posts
Poor OP. No wonder it's such a tough decision.
You're right, you definitely reach a point of diminishing returns - where you're spending a lot more money for less gain. If I'm doing a budget build, I'm using 243 as the foundation, but my goals are also less. Most of what follows is very nuanced stuff, and it's up to the owner if these details matter. To me they do, and to others they don't.
On porting, far less is required with AM castings in general. Using the trickflow 220, Tony's sportsman heads are only a 223 runner volume, based on the trick flow casting. So, if he is porting the TFS220, he's not doing much. Likely just removing a slight choke point or two in the runner.
And that TFS220 as cast head is pretty competitive with the AI 232cc 243 as an example. They're getting pretty comparable flow numbers - both flow 305 at 0.600" lift - but there is a bit more to it. The TFS is tested on a 3.9" bore plate vs the 243 tested on a 4" bore plate. If you put them both on a 3.9" bore engine, you're slightly better off on the TFS at peak. but with that smaller runner, the TFS is going to really going to pop more in the midrange and also carry further past peak HP. So, you achieve the same basic peak numbers (or close enough to probably not matter to most people), but your torque curve is going to be broader and flatter on the TFS heads. It's also possible that the broader torque curve will extend your HP peak to a higher RPM, which would translate into a slightly higher peak HP number
A very simple calculation I make is intake flow at 0.600 divided by intake runner volume. So, 305/220 = 1.39 vs 305/232 = 1.31. The more efficient port achieves higher velocities, which help with two things: improved cylinder fill at lower RPM where performance cams are less efficient and "taming" the cam a bit, making it easier to drive. Put very simply - build the same 3.9 x 3.622 LS1, same cam, intake, exhaust, etc, and try both heads. Beyond the dyno, just drive the car. You'll keep the TFS on the motor.
You're right, you definitely reach a point of diminishing returns - where you're spending a lot more money for less gain. If I'm doing a budget build, I'm using 243 as the foundation, but my goals are also less. Most of what follows is very nuanced stuff, and it's up to the owner if these details matter. To me they do, and to others they don't.
On porting, far less is required with AM castings in general. Using the trickflow 220, Tony's sportsman heads are only a 223 runner volume, based on the trick flow casting. So, if he is porting the TFS220, he's not doing much. Likely just removing a slight choke point or two in the runner.
And that TFS220 as cast head is pretty competitive with the AI 232cc 243 as an example. They're getting pretty comparable flow numbers - both flow 305 at 0.600" lift - but there is a bit more to it. The TFS is tested on a 3.9" bore plate vs the 243 tested on a 4" bore plate. If you put them both on a 3.9" bore engine, you're slightly better off on the TFS at peak. but with that smaller runner, the TFS is going to really going to pop more in the midrange and also carry further past peak HP. So, you achieve the same basic peak numbers (or close enough to probably not matter to most people), but your torque curve is going to be broader and flatter on the TFS heads. It's also possible that the broader torque curve will extend your HP peak to a higher RPM, which would translate into a slightly higher peak HP number
A very simple calculation I make is intake flow at 0.600 divided by intake runner volume. So, 305/220 = 1.39 vs 305/232 = 1.31. The more efficient port achieves higher velocities, which help with two things: improved cylinder fill at lower RPM where performance cams are less efficient and "taming" the cam a bit, making it easier to drive. Put very simply - build the same 3.9 x 3.622 LS1, same cam, intake, exhaust, etc, and try both heads. Beyond the dyno, just drive the car. You'll keep the TFS on the motor.
12-28-2016, 06:53 PM
#15
Yes, it often is a delimma selecting the parts for ones set up 
I come away thinking we are so lucky to have so many excellent choices from so many quality vendors.
Based on the Hot Rod cylinder head article, doing Darth's simple calculation for the following cylinder heads yeilded these results.
LS1 stock 238 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 205 cc yeilds 1.16
AFR as cast 343 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 244 yeilds 1.41
LPE LS6 318 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 234, yeilds 1.36
TEA LS6 329 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 226, yeilds 1.46
Trick Flow as cast 333 cfm at .600, port volume 234, yeilds 1.42
Pro Comp 321 cfm at .600, intake port 219, yeilds 1.47
On 3.9 bore independent bench my TEA LS6's did 308 at .600 on a 226 intake port for 1.36
They did 320 at same lift on another bench.
I always take flow numbers and associated data with a grain of salt. It does indicate some potential but there is more to determining the potential of a cylinder head. I think we all know that. One of my favorite ones is to look at the mid lift .400 lift numbers and compare them to the port volume the same way.
I come away thinking we are so lucky to have so many excellent choices from so many quality vendors.Based on the Hot Rod cylinder head article, doing Darth's simple calculation for the following cylinder heads yeilded these results.
LS1 stock 238 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 205 cc yeilds 1.16
AFR as cast 343 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 244 yeilds 1.41
LPE LS6 318 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 234, yeilds 1.36
TEA LS6 329 cfm at .600 lift, port volume 226, yeilds 1.46
Trick Flow as cast 333 cfm at .600, port volume 234, yeilds 1.42
Pro Comp 321 cfm at .600, intake port 219, yeilds 1.47
On 3.9 bore independent bench my TEA LS6's did 308 at .600 on a 226 intake port for 1.36
They did 320 at same lift on another bench.
I always take flow numbers and associated data with a grain of salt. It does indicate some potential but there is more to determining the potential of a cylinder head. I think we all know that. One of my favorite ones is to look at the mid lift .400 lift numbers and compare them to the port volume the same way.
Last edited by 99 Black Bird T/A; 12-28-2016 at 07:02 PM.
12-30-2016, 04:45 AM
#17
TECH Addict
12-30-2016, 03:39 PM
#19
Originally Posted by wannafbody
Do the Trick Flow heads work with the OEM rockers?
