I very much would like the heads to work with existing iron 10:1 builds using .040 gaskets. Go to a .020 gasket, it's 10.5:1, etc. I think sticking with near same cc chambers as stock without having to have half the head shaved off to meet that would be nice. It would give the customer more flexibility in terms of builds. Most people, like me, have already built their 350s long ago around the iron heads, and would like to just bolt the heads on and go. Sure, any engine would greatly benefit from being torn back down, proper parts to be installed to 100% match desired compression with the new heads, but the ability to just bolt them on and go is a thing I'm very much hoping for in these heads. If it requires buying much outside of headers and an intake manifold, I think it will turn a lot of people off or at least make them put off their purchase longer because now they have to buy this, and that, and that and those. I've said this before, but I feel as we edge ever closer to the final hour, it should be said again.
If they do, that means they should be able to use the stock stamped (or TA's HD stamped) setup as well. AFAIK, the rollers are a bolt on replacement for the stamped, so I think it would make the most sense to go that way. Or maybe offer a package deal, buy the heads and the rollers for together for cheaper than separate, etc.
block compression before supercharger is 9.5. built that way so I can go any way I want. saying that, head cc doesn't matter to me. s/c for me. how much boost with the s/c, don't know, don't care. I will keep adding more to it until it breaks... whenever that is. lol looking for a bigger s/c now.
Seeing how they have the sbc center to center distance now maybe TA can have some like these made for the new heads; https://www.ebay.com/itm/Chevy-Sbc-...Roller-Rocker-Arm-Set-100-Offset/351752576543 ? Would be even better if they cost the same as those!
Wait for Mike's pics. Maybe he'll have an assembled head pic that shows the rocker setup that fits......
Impressive. And I don't want to confuse things by too much reference to the Rover heads on this thread, but I do hope some of these ideas migrate that way, such as the thicker deck for about a 66cc chamber volume. And as long as I am doing that I may as well insert another small idea by asking if it is practical to angle the head with the thicker deck slightly so that the intake ports still line up without resorting to thicker gaskets? You know better that I do what the changes in geometry do so I'm just asking. Maybe it isn't needed. Jim
The TA roller rockers will work. The intake rocker lines up on the valve tip nice. The exhaust rocker is off the valve a fair bit. Because its a shaft rocker assembly it looks worse that the engine see's it. The exhaust rockers on the wagon are almost .100" off center, been that way since the early 90's, running 900lbs open. We are going to run these heads with TA 1.65 roller rockers. Stock stamp steel rockers look good, the pad is wide enough to accommodate. We are also looking at drilling and tapping the rocker bar for Chevy stud type rockers. If this works out the heads will be set up for Buick shaft rockers, mill the towers off and you could install the Chevy assembly's. Compression options. I can leave say .015-.020 on the deck. The valve job can be cut deeper by .040, this alone can take it from 54.5 to 58cc. Were trying to come up with the best scenario for all. I will have some offset exhaust rockers made. As long as we don't install large diameter valve springs 1.500"+ we should be able to get by with a production roller exh rocker with the roller tip moved to align with the valve.
I like the fact that using Chevy rockers is an option for those of us who don't already have a roller rocker set up. Money saved is money earned I was once told but not in this case, it'll be money spend on more Buick parts. Maybe a single plane intake to go with the new heads? Thanks to TA for their hard work!
