big block chevy info

grumpyvette

Administrator
Staff member
the real basics, (off ebays site)-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
This guide is intended to help you sort out the more major differences among Big Block Chevrolet engines produced since 1958. Chevrolet has designed and produced several different "big block" engine families. Within each family, there can be evolutionary changes, and special parts designed for competition use which may not be directly interchangeable with the regular production items. I don't intend to cover every possible variation. For practical purposes, all big block Chevrolet engines use a cylinder bore spacing of 4.84 inches although note the one exception below.

Early engines were designated as Mark I, (Mk I) Mk II, Mk III, and Mk IV. Later engines continued the numbering system as Generation 5 (Gen 5), Gen 6, Gen 7. There are some conflicting theories as to the reason for the change from "Mark" to "Generation". My first guess: "Gen 5" sounds much more modern, hi-tech, and trendy than "Mk V".

Mark I: The original "Big Block Chevy", also called the "W" engine perhaps because of the layout of the valves and therefore the shape of the valve covers--although another possibility is that GM chose the "W" prototype for production rather than the competing "X" or "Y" prototypes, and therefore it's a convenient coincidence that the valve layout is in the shape of a "W". It should be noted that this engine became "Mark I" only after the Mark II was being designed years after the "W" was introduced. Whatever the origin of the name, this engine family was installed in vehicles beginning in 1958, as a 348. In 1961, it went to 409 cubic inches, (as immortalized in the Beach Boys song "She's so fine, my 409") and for one year only (1963) a few well-connected racers could buy a car with a 427 cubic inch version called the Z-11. The 427 version was all about performance, and had special parts which were not directly interchangeable with the 348/409. While production of the 427 was severely limited, both the 348 and 409 were offered in passenger cars and light- and medium-duty trucks. The truck blocks were somewhat different from the passenger car blocks, having slightly different water jackets and of course, lower compression achieved by changes in the piston in addition to more machining of the top of the cylinder. A novel feature of this engine is that the top of the cylinders are not machined at a 90 degree angle to the bore centerline. The top of the cylinder block is machined at a 16 degree angle, and the cylinder head has almost no "combustion chamber" cast into it. The combustion chamber is the top wedge-shaped section of the cylinder. Ford also introduced an engine family like that in '58--the Mercury/Edsel/Lincoln "MEL" 383/410/430/462. The "W" engine ended it's automotive production life part way through the 1965 model year, when the 409 Mk I was superseded by the 396 Mk IV engine.

Mark II: This is more of a prototype than a production engine. It is the 1963-only "Mystery Engine" several of which ran the Daytona 500 race, and in fact won the 100-mile qualifier setting a new record. It is largely the result of engineering work by Dick Keinath. Produced mainly as a 427 but with a few 396 and 409 cubic inch versions, all in VERY limited numbers. Even though it was intended as a NASCAR-capable engine, it had 2-bolt main caps. This engine was never installed in a production-line vehicle by GM, it only went to racers. And even though it was available in 1963, it has very little resemblance to the 427 Mark I "W" engine of the same year. The Mark II was a "breakthrough" design using intake and exhaust valves that are tilted in two planes--a canted-valve cylinder head, nicknamed the "Semi-Hemi" or "Porcupine" because it is "almost" a hemi head, and the valve stems stick out of the head casting at seemingly random angles. The engine was the subject of an extensive article in the May, 1963 Hot Rod Magazine. Because of NASCAR politics, Chevrolet was forced to sell two 427 Mark II engines to Ford after the '63 Daytona race, (to "prove" that it was a production engine, and therefore eligible to race in NASCAR events) and so this engine is not only the grandfather of the Mark IV and later big block Chevies, it's also the grandfather of the canted-valve Ford engines: Boss 302, 351 Cleveland and variants, and the 429/460 big block Ford. The bore and stroke of the 427 MK II is not the same as the 427 MK IV.

Mark III: Never released for production. This was rumored to be the result of GM/Chevrolet's proposed buyout of the tooling and rights to the Packard V-8 engine of the mid-to-late '50's. The Packard engine was truly huge, having 5" bore centers. The former president of Packard wound up at Ford after Packard folded, perhaps because of that, Ford was also interested in this engine. Ford wanted to make a V-12 variant from it just as Packard had once envisioned. One way or another, neither GM nor Ford actually went forward with the purchase.

Mark IV: The engine that most people think of as the "big block Chevy". Released partway into the 1965 model year as a 396, superseding the older 409. It is a development of the Mark II and using similar but not identical canted valve (semi-hemi/porcupine) cylinder heads. It was later expanded to 402 (often still labeled as a 396, or even a 400,) a 427, a 454, and a few "special" engines were produced in the late '60's for offshore boat racing as a 482. There was a 366 and a 427 version that each had a .400 taller deck height to accommodate .400 taller pistons using four rings instead of the more usual three rings. These tall-deck engines were used only in medium-duty trucks (NOT in pickup trucks--think in terms of big farm trucks, garbage trucks, dump trucks, school busses, etc.) The tall-deck blocks all had 4-bolt main caps, forged crankshafts, and the strongest of the 3/8 bolt connecting rods. All-out performance engines used 7/16 bolt connecting rods, along with other changes. This engine family was discontinued in 1990, with the Gen 5 appearing in 1991.

Gen 5: General Motors made substantial revisions to the Mark IV engine, and the result was christened "Gen 5" when it was released for the 1991 model year as a 454. There were 502 cu. in. versions, but never installed in a production vehicle, the 502s were over-the-parts-counter only. Changes to the Gen 5 as compared to the Mk IV included, but are not limited to: rear main seal (and therefore the crankshaft and block) were changed to accept a one-piece seal, oiling passages were moved, the mechanical fuel pump provisions were removed from the block casting, the machined boss for a clutch bracket was eliminated, the cylinder heads lost the ability to adjust the valve lash, and the coolant passages at the top of the cylinder block were revised. The changes to the coolant passage openings meant that installing Mk IV cylinder heads on a Gen 5 block could result in coolant seepage into the lifter valley. Frankly, the changes (except for the one-piece rear main seal) were all easily recognized as cost-cutting measures which also removed some quality and/or utility. All told, the Gen 5 engine was not well regarded by the Chevy enthusiasts because of the changes to the coolant passages and the lack of an adjustable valvetrain. As always, the aftermarket has provided reasonable fixes for the problems. The Gen 5 lasted only until 1995 Gen 6: GM recognized that it did not make any friends when it designed the Gen 5, and so they chose to revise the coolant passages again when designing the Gen 6, allowing the older heads to be used without coolant seepage problems. The boss for the clutch bracket returned, but was generally not drilled and tapped. The non-adjustable valvetrain remained, as did the one-piece rear main seal. Some but not all Gen 6 454 (and not 502) blocks regained a mechanical fuel pump provision. Production engines installed in pickup trucks got a high-efficiency cylinder head, still canted-valve, but with a modern heart-shaped combustion chamber of about 100cc. The intake port has a "ski jump" cast into it to promote swirling of the intake air flow. All production vehicles with a Gen 6 used a 454 version, but over-the-counter 502s are available. The Gen 6 is sometimes referred to as the "Gen Fix" because it fixed a number of issues that disappointed enthusiasts when the Gen 5 was released. As an added bonus, most if not all Gen 6 engines use hydraulic roller lifters.

Gen 7: A very major revision of the previous engines resulted in the 8.1 liter/ 8100/ 496 cubic inch Gen 7 in 2001. The block gained .400 in deck height so it is the same height as the previous "Tall Deck" truck blocks, wider oil pan rails, and the cylinder heads have symmetrical port layouts instead of the previous 4 long/4 short port layout. Very little interchanges between the 8.1 liter engine and the previous Mark IV/Gen 5/Gen 6 engines. The head bolt pattern and even the firing order of the cylinders has been changed. There are some things that remained true to the previous Mk IV/Gen 5/Gen 6--the bellhousing bolt pattern, the side motor mount bolt pattern, the flywheel bolt pattern, and the exhaust manifold bolt pattern are the same. Note that the bolt holes are threaded for metric fasteners. The 8.1 is internally balanced, so you could install a flywheel/flexplate from a 396/427 Mk IV provided you use the correct bolts to suit the 8.1 crankshaft.

I have had a chance to compare Mark IV, Gen 5/6 and Gen 7 head gaskets. It seems to be possible--but very difficult--to install IV/5/6 heads on the Gen 7 block. GM did this on one show vehicle, it IS possible. You must move three head bolt holes in the block; and as the holes only move about 1/2 their diameter it would be difficult to plug the existing holes, re-drill the new holes, and still have enough strength in the deck surface. There are cooling system differences as well that must be addressed. I have NOT done this conversion; but I do have comparison photos of the head gaskets.

Specifications:
(sorry if this table loses it's formatting: I don't know how to fix it. It looks "ok" at full screen width on my computer)

Engine family Displacement Bore Stroke Rod length

MK I 348 4.125 3.25 6.135

MK I 409 4.31 3.5 6.010

MK I 427 4.31 3.65 6.135

MK II 427 4.31 3.65 6.135

MK IV 366 3.938 3.76 6.135 (Only offered as a medium duty truck engine)

MK IV 396 4.094 3.76 6.135

MK IV 402 4.125 3.76 6.135

MK IV 427 4.250 3.76 6.135 (Offered in passenger car and medium duty truck versions)

MK IV/Gen 5/6 454 4.250 4.0 6.135

MK IV 482 4.250 4.25 6.405 (very rare, made only for offshore boat races. Used tall-deck block)

Gen 5/6 502 4.466 4.0 6.135 (Over the parts-counter only; not installed in production vehicles)

Gen 7 496/8.1 4.25 4.37

Specials: GM has sold many special-purpose engines, partial engines, blocks, cylinder heads, etc., "over the parts counter" that were never installed in production line vehicles. It is very difficult to track all the various items--suffice to say that heavy-duty "Bowtie" blocks and cylinder heads in various configurations--Mark IV, Gen 5, etc, have been produced. Oldsmobile used the Big Block Chevy as a baseline when designing the first of the Drag Race Competition Engines (DRCE) so that the early DRCE engines have an Olds Rocket emblem cast into the block, but it's Chevy parts that fit inside. There are special high performance blocks and heads, in either iron or aluminum, produced by GM and by aftermarket suppliers to suit almost any racing need.

Coolant Routing Mk IV/Gen 5/Gen 6
There are two different ways that coolant can be routed through the engine: series flow and parallel flow. Both ways work just fine. There may be a slight preference for parallel flow, but it is not a big deal. Series flow has the water exiting the water pump, flowing through the block to the rear, it then transfers through the head gasket and into the cylinder head through two large passages on each cylinder bank at the rear of the block. The coolant then travels from the rear of the head, forward to the front of the head, into the intake manifold water passage and out past the thermostat and thermostat housing. The water cools the block first, then it cools the head. The coldest water (coming out of the water pump) is directly below the hottest water (having already picked up the heat of the block and the head) as the hot water transfers into the intake manifold. By contrast, parallel flow has the water exiting from the water pump into the block, where a portion "geysers" up into the head between the first and second cylinder, another portion "geysers" up to the head between the second and third cylinders, another portion geysers up to the head between the third and fourth cylinder, and the remainder transfers to the head at the rear of the block. The coolant temperature inside the engine is more even that way. The differences in coolant routing is having (or not having) the three additional coolant transfer holes in each block deck, and three matching holes in the head gasket. The heads have passages for either system, and are not different based on coolant flow.

Be aware that gaskets that DO have the three extra holes between the cylinders often have restricted coolant flow at the rear--instead of having two large coolant transfer holes at the rear, there is only one, and it's the smaller of the two holes that remains. This is important because if you use a parallel flow head gasket on a series flow block, you can have massive overheating and there's NOTHING that will cure the problem except to replace the head gaskets with ones that don't restrict flow at the rear of the block, or to drill the block decks to allow the coolant to flow into the head between the cylinders. Here's why they can overheat: A series-flow block doesn't have the openings between the cylinders, no coolant can flow up to the head there. The gasket may only have the single, smaller opening at the rear, so the amount of water that gets through that opening is greatly reduced from what the block designers intended. The result is that the coolant flow through the engine is only a fraction of what is needed.

Most, but NOT all Mk IV engines are Series Flow. ALL Gen 5 and Gen 6 engines are Parallel Flow. A series flow block can be converted to parallel flow by drilling 3 holes in each deck surface, and then use parallel flow head gaskets. You can use the parallel flow gaskets as templates for locating the additional holes. It's really easy: Put the parallel flow gaskets on the block, mark the location and size of the three extra holes. Remove the gasket. Grab a 1/2" drill and a drill bit of the correct size, and pop the extra holes in the block. There is NO modification needed on the head castings. Some blocks have one of the holes already, but it needs to be ground oblong to properly match the gasket. Again, very easy with a hand held die grinder and rotary file.

Please check out my guides to GM small block engines , and Olds, Pontiac, and Buick big block engines, Mopar V-8 engine families, Ford V-8 engine families since 1932 or HEI distributors , too.
"
 
iF your offered a BBC corvette engine, those older 396-427-454 engines come in ALOT of differant variations, and youll need to verify the vin and casting numbers, but if its got a factory aluminum intake its probably one of the more desirable versions, especially if its got rectangle port heads and higher than 10:1 compression.
back in 1965-1974 those BBC vette engines were highly prized, but the 1966-1970 generally were the better sellections, if you can get access to it a a decent price GRAB IT.
my first really fast car had a modified vette big block installed in a pontiac.

link

http://www.corvettefever.com/techarticl ... index.html
can you post any engine casting or vin numbers, to help identify the exact engine?
BTW only the 1965 had a 396,

158-BBChevyBB2X_details.gif


http://gearheadgeek.com/ghgj/index.php/ ... -s?start=1

http://www.mortec.com/bbc.htm

http://www.nastyz28.com/bbcmenu.php

http://www.chevellepages.com/numbers/Bi ... umbers.htm

http://www.minuit10.net/EngineCode/chev ... erHead.htm

ZL1.jpg

THE ZL1 aluminum block makes over 550hp when correctly tuned with minor mods and a good roller cam, and weight is very close to what an all iron small block weights

572.jpg

THE 572 is the largest factory available big block crate engine, and in it performance version it makes over 750hp when correctly tunned with minor mods and a good roller cam
 
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... index.html

Big Block Cylinder Heads - Big-Block Cylinder Head Test

Read more: http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/cc ... z1Tt4wV6B5

http://users.erols.com/srweiss/tablehdc ... _Big_Block

| http://www.cranecams.com/userfiles/PP08 ... ePages.pdf

Edelbrock Heads
The Edelbrock Performer RPM oval ports are an interesting mix within the collection of aftermarket aluminum oval-port heads. They offer the largest intake-port volume of 290 cc with the smallest 2.19-inch intake valve. Among the specs we list for each head is the intake port cross-sectional area. We measured each of the five heads in the same basic place in the intake port to determine the smallest cross-sectional area. This dimension, in square inches, is intended to give you an idea of which head will generate the highest intake velocity based on size. A smaller intake-port cross-section will generate a higher intake-flow velocity while larger ports will experience slower velocities. Intake-port velocity (up to a point) has been shown to have a positive effect on cylinder filling, which results in better power. The Edelbrock's intake-flow numbers are decent, although not on a par with the other three aluminum heads, and still performed well despite having the largest intake-port cross-sectional area number.
Big Block Cylinder Heads Edelbrock Cylinder Heads
Edelbrock has always offered...

read full caption
Big Block Cylinder Heads Edelbrock Cylinder Head Spark Plug
Edelbrock has moved the spark...

read full caption

Another important consideration is that these heads rely on a stock exhaust-port exit position, which helps with header fitment. As we'll see in the dyno testing, the Edelbrock heads performed well in the horsepower test even though they did not win when evaluated strictly on torque and horsepower. But add in price and suddenly these heads are players, since they are the least expensive of all the aluminum heads we tested. Check out our dollar-per-horsepower evaluation and see if you agree that the Edelbrock heads make excellent fiscal sense.

Edelbrock Performer RPM-O "Roval"
2.19/1.88 valves
110cc chamber
Intake port volume: 290 cc
Stock location exhaust port
Intake cross-section: 3.07 sq. in.
PN 60479

Valve Intake Exhaust E/I
Lift (no pipe)
0.100 66 58 88%
0.200 135 126 93%
0.300 196 149 76%
0.400 240 171 71%
0.500 264 189 71%
0.600 281 203 72%


|

Edelbrock Heads
The Edelbrock Performer RPM oval ports are an interesting mix within the collection of aftermarket aluminum oval-port heads. They offer the largest intake-port volume of 290 cc with the smallest 2.19-inch intake valve. Among the specs we list for each head is the intake port cross-sectional area. We measured each of the five heads in the same basic place in the intake port to determine the smallest cross-sectional area. This dimension, in square inches, is intended to give you an idea of which head will generate the highest intake velocity based on size. A smaller intake-port cross-section will generate a higher intake-flow velocity while larger ports will experience slower velocities. Intake-port velocity (up to a point) has been shown to have a positive effect on cylinder filling, which results in better power. The Edelbrock's intake-flow numbers are decent, although not on a par with the other three aluminum heads, and still performed well despite having the largest intake-port cross-sectional area number.
Big Block Cylinder Heads Edelbrock Cylinder Heads
Edelbrock has always offered...

read full caption
Big Block Cylinder Heads Edelbrock Cylinder Head Spark Plug
Edelbrock has moved the spark...

read full caption

Another important consideration is that these heads rely on a stock exhaust-port exit position, which helps with header fitment. As we'll see in the dyno testing, the Edelbrock heads performed well in the horsepower test even though they did not win when evaluated strictly on torque and horsepower. But add in price and suddenly these heads are players, since they are the least expensive of all the aluminum heads we tested. Check out our dollar-per-horsepower evaluation and see if you agree that the Edelbrock heads make excellent fiscal sense.

Edelbrock Performer RPM-O "Roval"
2.19/1.88 valves
110cc chamber
Intake port volume: 290 cc
Stock location exhaust port
Intake cross-section: 3.07 sq. in.
PN 60479

Valve Intake Exhaust E/I
Lift (no pipe)
0.100 66 58 88%
0.200 135 126 93%
0.300 196 149 76%
0.400 240 171 71%
0.500 264 189 71%
0.600 281 203 72%

Dart Heads
These are the newest castings amid the oval-port contenders. Clearly Dart was after serious performance since it fitted these 275cc intake ports with 2.25-inch intake valves. Only the TFS heads with 2.30-inch intakes are larger. From a port cross-sectional area standpoint, the Darts are the largest of all the heads we tested, which might have contributed to their overall torque curve performance. One other aspect of these heads that does not show up on the flow numbers is Dart's emphasis on wet-flow development work.
Big Block Cylinder Heads Dart Cylinder Heads
The Dart 275 heads not only...

read full caption
Big Block Cylinder Heads Dart Pushrods
Dart makes this slick adjustable...

read full caption

Dart also raised the exhaust-port exit 0.300 inch, which is a major reason the high-lift exhaust-flow numbers are so strong. What's interesting is that both the Dart and TFS heads offer a 0.300-inch raised exhaust port and that both the Dart and TFS heads' exhaust-port flow numbers make a significant jump at the higher valve lift, virtually duplicating each other as seen on the exhaust-port flow charts.

Dart 275 Oval Port
2.25/1.88 valves
119cc chamber
Intake port volume: 275 cc
Raised exhaust port: 0.300 inch
Intake cross-section: 3.26 sq. in.
PN 19000112

Valve Intake Exhaust E/I
Lift (no pipe)
0.100 68 68 100%
0.200 151 115 76%
0.300 215 155 72%
0.400 259 192 74%
0.500 293 223 76%
0.600 315 244 77%
0.700 310 259 83%

TFS Heads
If you look at the flow curves, the TFS and Dart intake-flow numbers virtually overlap throughout the entire flow curve on both the intake and exhaust, which is surprising. Despite this, there are a couple of items that differentiate the TFS heads. First, the TFS intake port has the smallest cross-sectional area of all the aftermarket heads at 2.84 square inches, while the Dart has the largest by a wide margin. The second point is the raised exhaust port, which creates excellent exhaust flow numbers that would probably benefit from a single-pattern camshaft design.
Big Block Cylinder Heads Tfs Exhaust Port
The TFS heads do push the...

read full caption
Big Block Cylinder Heads Tfs Cylinder Heads
The TFS are the second-least...

read full caption

TFS Oval Port
2.300/1.88 valves
113cc chamber
Intake-port volume: 280 cc
Exhaust port raised 0.300 inch
Intake cross-section: 2.84 sq. in.
PN 41300002

Valve Intake Exhaust E/I
Lift (w/ pipe)
0.100 69 61 88%
0.200 141 126 89%
0.300 209 159 76%
0.400 260 192 75%
0.500 292 221 75%
0.600 318 246 77%
0.700 325 264 81%
E/I is the exhaust-to-intake flow relationship expressed as a percentage.

Brodix Heads
The Brodix Race-Rite oval-port heads are an interesting approach. When we first flow-tested these heads, we were impressed with their out-of-the-box performance. Then when the idea for a test came along, Brodix offered a set of CNC-machined chamber versions that we didn't have time to flow-test. According to Brodix's Web site, this chamber mod should be worth roughly 4-5 cfm across the entire valve-lift curve. This also adds another $225 to the price of the heads. This change also bumped the compression, which is why this modification is worthy of consideration. Generally, a CNC chamber is also worth some combustion efficiency that is hard to measure unless we did some kind of back-to-back test on the same set of heads.
Big Block Cylinder Heads Brodix Cylinder Heads
The Brodix oval-port head...

read full caption
Big Block Cylinder Heads Brodix Combustion Chamber
The Brodix heads benefited...

read full caption

The Brodix has a decent exhaust port, but because it is a stock exit-location port, the exhaust-flow numbers are not as strong as the TFS or Darts. This may explain why the Race-Rites benefited at the top a little more from the dual pattern cam. Our only complaint with these heads is that the valve-cover rail is low and spills oil on the headers when we remove the valve covers. Brodix chose to do this to make the heads easier to fit into tight engine compartments faced with clearance problems around A/C compressors and power brake boosters. Overall, this is a great oval-port cylinder head.

cylinder head.

Brodix Race-Rite Oval Port
2.25/1.88 valves
Chamber 118 cc (110 cc CNC as tested)
Intake-port volume: 270 cc
Stock exhaust-port location
Intake-port cross-section: 3.08 sq. in.
PN 2061001 (RR BB-O)

Valve Intake Exhaust E/I
Lift (w/ pipe)
0.100 74 64 86%
0.200 163 113 69%
0.300 218 145 66%
0.400 267 171 64%
0.500 306 194 63%
0.600 328 216 66%
0.700 341 234 68%
0.800 348 244 70%
Note: This flow data was collected on an as-cast head without CNC chamber mods.

We set up the peanut-port heads with the same good Comp valvesprings, titanium retainers, and roller rocker arms. We also used a set of Comp 0.300-inch-thick spring seat inserts to take up the extra room created when we got rid of the stock exhaust-valve rotators.>

GM Iron Peanut Port
This cast-iron head is called the peanut port because the intake ports are not much larger than their namesake. Omar Cabrillo at Coast Motor Supply in Canoga Park, California, helped us out by supplying a pair of the heads complete with tiny stock valves, new guides, and a basic valve job. These peanut ports are roughly 30 percent smaller than an aftermarket 270cc version. There are larger factory oval-port, cast-iron, open-chamber heads at 250 cc, but the only ones we could find had been modified, which would not be representative of an OE head. But don't count these peanut clusters out. If you were looking to build a budget-oriented Rat for towing where power above 4,500 rpm was not a concern, these heads would be an excellent choice with almost 600 lb-ft of torque at 3,200 rpm. If you were to pocket-port these heads and add larger 2.19/1.88-inch valves, you could make 530-plus horsepower. That's not bad for iron castings.

GM 236 Iron Peanut Oval Port
2.06/1.72-inch valves
120cc chamber
Intake-port volume: 208 cc
Stock exhaust port location
Intake-port cross-section: 2.43 sq.in.

Valve Intake Exhaust E/I
Lift (w/pipe)
0.100 56 44 78%
0.200 125 90 72%
0.300 183 117 64%
0.400 215 139 64%
0.500 233 158 68%
0.600 235 166 71%
0.700 235 172 73%
 
PARTS LIST
DESCRIPTION PN SOURCE PRICE
Edelbrock Perf. RPM-O 60479 Summit Racing $1,779.00
Dart Pro-1 oval, assm. 19000112 Summit Racing 2,483.90
TFS aluminum oval 41300002 Summit Racing 2,095.95
Brodix Race-Rite, assm. 2061001 Summit Racing 2,133.90*
Comp hyd. roller cam 35-518-8 Summit Racing 259.95
Comp hyd. roller lifters 887-16 Summit Racing 509.95
Comp rocker arms, 1.7:1 1120-16 Summit Racing 457.39
Comp valvespring, 1.550 933-16 Summit Racing 150.99
Comp titanium ret., 1.550 732-16 Summit Racing 299.95
Comp light steel ret, 1.550 1732-16 Summit Racing 162.69


|

POWER CHART
Iron Stock Edelbrock Dart TFS Brodix
RPM TQ HP TQ HP TQ HP TQ HP TQ HP
3,200 595 363 610 372 605 368 612 373 619 377
3,300 594 373 609 383 604 379 612 384 614 386
3,400 594 385 611 396 606 392 614 398 615 398
3,500 595 396 613 408 608 405 617 411 618 412
3,600 595 407 613 420 610 418 619 424 621 426
3,700 593 418 615 433 612 431 622 438 623 439
3,800 592 428 616 457 614 444 624 452 624 452
3,900 591 439 618 459 615 457 626 465 625 464
4,000 590 449 618 471 615 468 626 477 626 477
4,100 589 460 617 482 614 479 625 488 626 488
4,200 587 470 615 492 611 489 622 498 623 498
4,300 585 479 612 501 609 498 619 507 620 507

4,400 581 487 609 510 606 508 616 516 616 516
4,500 577 495 607 520 604 518 614 526 613 525
4,600 572 501 605 530 603 528 613 537 611 535
4,700 565 506 602 539 602 539 610 546 609 545
4,800 558 510 598 547 600 548 607 555 606 554
4,900 551 514 593 553 597 557 604 563 602 561
5,000 543 516 587 559 593 564 599 571 598 569
5,100 534 518 582 565 588 571 595 578 593 576

5,200 525 519 576 570 583 577 590 584 588 582
5,300 515 520 570 575 578 583 583 589 583 588
5,400 507 521 563 579 572 588 576 593 576 593
5,500 496 519 555 581 566 593 568 595 569 596
5,600 487 519 546 582 558 595 558 595 560 597
5,700 476 517 536 582 549 595 547 594 550 596
5,800 465 513 527 582 538 595 537 593 538 595
5,900 451 507 518 582 528 594 527 592 528 593
6,000 438 500 510 582 519 593 517 590 517 591
6,100 423 492 500 581 506 588 505 586 507 589
6,200 407 481 487 575 494 583 490 579 495 584

Peaks and Averages
Avg. TQ Avg. HP Peak TQ Peak HP
Iron 541.1 475.0 595 521
Edelbrock 582.1 514.9 618 582
Dart 584.2 517.7 615 595
TFS 590.3 522.5 626 595
Brodix 590.8 523.0 626 597

Price Vs. Performance
Here's where this gets interesting. The Brodix, Dart, and TFS heads all made strong peak power, leaving the Edelbrock slightly behind. Then we divided the price of each pair of heads by their peak horsepower. Here, the Edelbrock is the clear winner in terms of horsepower per dollar. One note for clarity's sake: We added the price of the Brodix CNC chamber modification to the price of the heads, since that's the way the heads were tested. What this shows is that the Edelbrock heads offer excellent power for the money. There's something to be said for combining value with all-out power.
 
Back
Top