***Buick 350 Alum Heads Update***

Discussion in 'Small Block Tech' started by sean Buick 76, Apr 6, 2016.

  1. gsjohnny1

    gsjohnny1 Well-Known Member

    I disagree about using the sbc stuff. aluminum stability vs cast iron is way different especially if hi rpms are used. the sbb has one of the longest pushrods and with all the dimension being long, we engage some parasitic h/p loss. you don't see nascar engines using wobbly stud rockers anymore. they got smart and now use shaft rockers. what's that saying about price vs quality...…...
     
    Mart and Mark Demko like this.
  2. gsjohnny1

    gsjohnny1 Well-Known Member

    what I want to see is what is the most cfm t/a has open them up to before I buy a set.
     
    Mart likes this.
  3. Mark Demko

    Mark Demko Well-Known Member

    I know Im not using junk SBC rockers, no way, no how:D
    Gimme the shaft:cool:
     
    Dano likes this.
  4. hugger

    hugger Well-Known Member

    SHAFT???!!!! WHO NEEDS A SHAFT??!! WHERE'S HE AT!!!GIMMEE GIMMEE GIMMEE!!! BF DSCF3336.jpg
     
    PGSS and Mark Demko like this.
  5. BCbuickguy

    BCbuickguy New Member

    Ford got a 'shotgun' 429 in a mustang, dang sure you can get the 350 in there.... just saying.
     
  6. MrSony

    MrSony Well-Known Member

    The sbc rockers are for those who want more ratio or don't have shaft rockers and don't want to spend a ludicrous amount on shaft rockers they need to modify. I'm glad the option is there.
     
  7. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    The stud rockers were mentioned for the guy that doesn't want to change anything but the heads, because the rockers are available in the 1.8:1 ratio to get some better lift with the factory cam that would still be around .500" lift which is still on the mild side. Plus with a factory bottom end and a factory intake that thing isn't going to break any RPM records to worry about anyway.


    Mike Jr. said he got over 300 CFM with one intake port with more porting but said the velocity started going down so he stopped short of that for the rest of them.

    I think that over 300 may be possible by centering the intake valve in the port by removing the material next to the exhaust valve on the intake side so there is more flow on the non-shrouded side of the valve. That would basically get rid of the factory swirl port design to a more conventional performance port design.

    Comparing heads with similar valve angles like 14* sbc performance heads that flow around 340 CFM right out of the box and with porting can flow close to 400 CFM with porting. Granted there is more bore spacing and larger bore sizes with a sbc but I don't see why the new heads can't get into the 340 CFM range changing the port to a conventional performance port with the valve centered with porting.

    But if there are water passages in the area in between the in. and ex. valves that needs to be removed on the intake side there will be the cost of welding to be considered to be able to reach the mentioned CFM. But still reachable because aluminum is way more weld-able than cast iron to try that trick!
     
  8. Swagon

    Swagon Well-Known Member

    Alright I'll finally chime in on this especially after my convo with Mike Sr. the thing a lot of people are missing imo is that these heads are suppose to work with all of the parts they make without any mods. yes you could easily build these heads with a more aggressive valve degree, and or intake port spacing and even shape but it comes down to whats currently avail and what 98% of the market is using. Also imo its not wise to build a head that flows over 340-360cfm because of the bore size just doesnt make sense to to me, theres no way to keep the velocity up. The ports on these heads are a giant leap from the stock swirl ports, similar but not the same. There is a lot TA could of done with these heads and possibly are going to in the future, again they built these heads for 98% of the market. Also for some of those that are saying TA should of done this and should of done that, why dont you go and build and design a set of heads? I think we should be grateful they even built this set of heads.
     
    partsrparts, Mart, Fox's Den and 5 others like this.
  9. stk3171

    stk3171 Well-Known Member

    When using the stud type rockers on sbc with springs that are needed to control valves for high rpm 6000 plus stud girdle's are needed to prevent aluminum heads from cracking and pulling studs. you will be needing a stud girdle setup for this to be reliable. If the stock style cams that are for low rpm this stud setup will be fine.

    Dan
     
    300sbb_overkill likes this.
  10. PGSS

    PGSS Well-Known Member

    ^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^:)
    I think the HP numbers asking is just frustration from waiting so long.. me included and I don't even have a SBB to mod:rolleyes:
    I'm going to go Corny;) and say Kudos for Mike and Mike Jr. at TA for putting up with constant and a few somewhat negative questions and not losing their cool for a AL head they are working on to try to please all levels of builders. With a small small market to begin with.
    Larry's post nailed it also when he mentioned to double check the dyno numbers and a few others posters too.
    There's alot more SBB out there or at least remaining than BBB that i'm hearing and these heads just might make people run to the junkyards. What 350 owners wouldn't love to see a set of their AL heads under there Christmas tree??
    Yup, i'm King of Corny:D
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2019
    sriley531 likes this.
  11. 300sbb_overkill

    300sbb_overkill WWG1WGA. MAGA

    If you're referring to my posts as bashing TA you sir are largely mistaken. I am just pointing out what is potentially possible with these heads by porting them. Yes in an earlier post I questioned why they copied the factory swirl port design because they were starting from scratch but have been over it for quite a while now because aluminum can be easily welded if someone wanted WAY more flow than the swirl port design can deliver.

    And yes the port design is identical to the factory port. The changes TA made to fit bigger valves didn't effect the factory port design at all, it is basically the same. I never said to change the intake port spacing either, where did that come from? These are suppose to be performance heads NOT all out race heads, most people know that.(including me)

    And if you're saying that I suggested changing the valve angle AGAIN you are mistaken(reread my post). I compared the sbc 14* aftermarket performance heads because they have a very similar valve angle to the TA heads(and for that matter factory sbb 350 heads have) and they flow around 340 out of the box before porting!(the 14* sbc aftermarket heads) And then commented that around 340 may be a possibly with corrective porting for the TA heads. Not at anytime did I say that the TA heads should flow 340 out of the box!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes: I did mention 260 out of the box because that is what fully ported irons typically would be capable of, 230 is close enough with a lot more potential with porting is fine with me.

    Actually the factory valve angle @ 10* is more "aggressive" than the sbc 14* heads! For those that don't know a sbc head is 23* from the factory.

    Bore size doesn't care how much flow the heads have. The more flow the more power potential. Not sure why you can't wrap your head around that?:confused: Anyway 340 CFM would be awesome for a boosted sbb 350! Make twice the power with half the boost, what's not to like about that? Or would be great for a sbb stroker to feed the extra cubes. Or a non-stroker for someone with a billet crank that wants to spin it to 8,500 RPM to make power!

    The diameter of the bore of a sbb 350 doesn't make the engine smaller than a 350 cubic inch engine made from a different manufacturer that uses a larger bore size. Both engines will make more power with more flow.

    Perhaps TA kept the swirl port design to maintain that Buick torque? Whatever the reason for the port design they chose wouldn't of changed what parts that could or couldn't be bolted to the heads if they picked a different port design.
     
  12. Swagon

    Swagon Well-Known Member

    I didn't take your post as bashing at all, just read it a little wrong is all. A couple of things I disagree on or see differently is one the bore size thing. I guess they really dont care but there becomes a point from what Ive seen that it just simply becomes way to much head the size of the engine cant take it and then becomes lazy. Second is if they went to a different port design I wouldnt of been able to bolt a stock or even my SP intake on to the heads. From the convo I had with Mike Sr. there is a lot of ideas they have now or things they could possibly do to the heads to use a wider port more like a SBC style port and or move it a bit if need be, but a custom intake will need made.
     
  13. TABuickMike

    TABuickMike Michael Tomaszewski Jr

    I don't mean to be rude, but have you even seen the ports in the heads? You're passing a lot of judgement and criticism on something you're 100% incorrect about. The intake port is not "identical to the factory swirl port design". The only similarity is that the entry is in the same location. It's based on the intake port in our Rover heads.

    These are the ports in my head. I blended behind the pushrod tube, blended the head bolt boss, worked the short side a little, and made the bowl a little bigger. Then cartridge rolled the rest of the port.
    50913148_2139948932693157_5362036179636060160_o.jpg
     
  14. TABuickMike

    TABuickMike Michael Tomaszewski Jr

    Also, a larger bore means the cylinders will fill better, and typically will make more power.
     
    PGSS likes this.
  15. Fox's Den

    Fox's Den 22 years of racing the same 355 Buick motor

    Well that just sets you straight huh Derek I just have to laugh. :p

    The ports look nice.

    Now when you are on that dyno throw in just a small 100 shot of nitrous you'll hit 580 easily.

    I gained 1 1/2 seconds on a small shot less than a 100, 13.80 to 12.31 A 1.95 60ft to a 1.65 60ft also.
    Did that at Quaker Raceway during the Buick meet that Friday night
     
    Mart, PGSS, Mark Demko and 2 others like this.
  16. MrSony

    MrSony Well-Known Member

    Fun Fact:
    Messing around with the Desktop Dyno program... version 2003.
    355 with heads matching TA's "out of the box" flow specs, 800cfm carb, dual plane high flow, small tube headers (I think it assumes 1 5/8 for that value... idk), crower level 4 cam (file I had loaded already) at 10.25:1, it says 399hp at 5500 and 398ftlbs at 4500. Retarding it from +4* to -4* nets 2hp.
    ik it's not 100% accurate, but it's close enough for me. a 400hp/400ftlb 400lb engine will sure be awesome in a g body.

    Although I can't afford them right away, these heads will be in my possession as soon as I can.
     
  17. 436'd Skylark

    436'd Skylark Sweet Fancy Moses!!!!!

    Holy throwback Thursday. When i was in college I spent hours playing with desktop dyno.. anyway you could send me a copy?

    Thanks!
     
  18. Jim Nichols

    Jim Nichols Well-Known Member

    I did the latest Performance Trends Engine Analyzer (Desktop Dyno) on Chris's 300 Stroker 350 with the Crower cam and came up with 400 flywheel HP with the 300 heads. About 500RPM change for every 4 degrees change. Also changes the Dynamic compression. With the Rover T/A heads he would have gained 60HP and if there was a Wildcat single plane intake available another 30 HP.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2019
  19. MrSony

    MrSony Well-Known Member

    If I can I'll try.
     
  20. Darron72Skylark

    Darron72Skylark Well-Known Member

    I just bought a copy of Desktop Dyno 5 and have been enjoying using it to try out different iterations and ideas. Pretty neat program, though I don't know how accurate it is.
     

Share This Page