Here's what TA wrote about them in their downloadable catalog; TA Performance’s Rover V8 aluminum cylinder heads are the best performing heads for the popular Rover V8 engines produced from 1967-2004. Based upon our V6 cylinder head, these heads are a great improvement over the factory and other aftermarket Rover cylinder heads. The major area of improvement in the performance of these heads is the improved intake and exhaust ports. Out of the box, these heads flow 225 cfm intake and 135 cfm exhaust. With porting, this head can easily yield 260 cfm on the intake and 190 cfm on the exhaust ports. In addition, the valve angle has been adjusted to 13 to put the valves on the centerline of the bore which allows for the use of larger valves, up to 2.02” intake and 1.60” exhaust. The exhaust ports have also been raised 3/4” to help improve performance. These heads also feature a 1.850”-1.900” valve spring install height which allows for the use of higher lift cams. On 10.5:1 Compression engines, out of the box performance is usually 40+ HP. Another feature that was incorporated during the design is the new 35cc combustion chamber shape. Factory Rover cylinder heads feature a D shaped combustion chamber. The new TA Rover head features a Heart shaped combustion chamber found on all high performance cylinder heads, including our V6 and big block heads. This results in better combustion and a decrease in the possibility of detonation, due to the more compact chamber, which increases performance. The chamber and deck thickness was also increased to at least 5/8” or thicker. This makes the heads stronger so they can handle more power without flexing and cracking, a potential problem on high horsepower or forced induction engines. The valve cover rail has also been raised to make way for additional material which gives you the ability to raise the intake ports to make it a tall port head. A raised runner provides a more direct flow to the valve resulting in additional CFM over the standard port head, approximately 10-15 CFM on average. Accessory bolt hole patterns for both the 14 and 10 bolt Rover heads have also been incorporated so that the heads fit the early 14 bolt and the later 10 bolt Rover blocks. While this cylinder head was designed for the Rover V8, it will also bolt on to Buick 300/340 blocks with minor modifications. The stock Rover exhaust should bolt right up, but as the exhaust ports have been raised 3/4” fit there may be some fitment issues on some cars. In addition to the Rover valve cover bolt pattern, the 350 Buick valve cover bolt pattern has been incorporated on these heads allowing the use of 350 Buick valve covers for better clearance with roller rockers or for those looking to use these heads on a Buick 300/340. These heads will require new rocker arms, the stock rocker arm setup is not compatible with these heads. There are two options, shaft mounted roller rockers (TA 1309B) or Chevy style pedestal mount roller rockers. TA offers a wide variety of pedestal mount roller rockers (TA 1309C/D series), or you can use any other Chevy roller rocker but pedestal roller rockers will require the use of our guide plates (TA 1309GP). Note: Requires the fabrication of a lifter tray cover. Uses 11/32” diameter valves 5.060” in length. TA 2150 PRICING Assembled $2,808.90 Bare Castings $1,500.00 I hope this is enough? For more flow numbers maybe TA Mike can chime in with those? Derek
Would be nice to get more flow numbers @ lift, as that is what's needed. I doubt though that they'd take this thread or my posts very seriously, as I'm not using a real-world dyno, just number crunching. I know it's similar and/or gives an idea of what to expect, but there are those die-hard old school'ers who won't believe anything unless there's a timeslip/real dyno sheet attached to it. And that's perfectly fine. I'm sure they read this and keep up with stuff even if they won't comment or admit it. I flip through things that I do not intend to comment on, simply because I'm curious. Nothing wrong with that. It's no mystery, and there's no magic involved. It's simply science. Lots of variables that we all tend to overlook or forget. I always wanted to lay as much information out there as possible so someone could make a better decision based on real information and research. Point out things they maybe didn't take into consideration or shine light on a different point of view. In this regard we all help each other out in our own way. Sure we shoot the **** and get sidetracked a lot (I know I do). It keeps things interesting. This website isn't all about hard facts and data. It's mostly about the spirit of a brand we all love. In the end, it's all just alloys dug up out of the ground and fabricated into something that someone put a nameplate on long ago. Creativity is wonderful. All engines do pretty much the same thing, but in different ways. You flow air, you get power. How much, and at which RPM, is the question. I already know this 300 will produce a lot of power if you open it up, as would any engine. Running specific numbers can create interesting results, not just on paper, but in the minds of those reading. Some may be impressed, some will disbelieve (either in the results or the authenticity of the results); it may inspire someone to want to try this or that out, or give an idea for something totally unrelated. Who knows. I spend entirely too much time here on this site. lol I love it though. Gives me hope and something to do instead of feeling like I'm simply an expendable cog in some machine somewhere. For the most part, I feel like my time is well spent here. It's either this, or play some video game that does nothing but kill time. At least this can help someone, or I can learn something new myself. Entertainment. We all need it in some way. What's the difference between this and a video game anyway? Video games are much cheaper, for sure, and safer too. So what the hell. Keeping that old flame alive. Gary
Well I guess max flow numbers aren't good enough, that's what TA has listed. o No: I'll ask Mike in the TA product section for some flow chart numbers for their Rover heads. Derek
Give me the flow numbers on your ported heads @lift and the size of the valves, and which cam you're using (or would like me to test), compression ratio, etc. and I'll get to work! I can just use the head data and put in an 'ideal' combo (for street/strip) that I'll brew up so we can see what she'll do. You could give me the specs on your engine verbatim, and I can run it on the program and see how it compares to your real world dyno results and/or timeslips. We might be able to see just how accurate this dyno program is this way. Gary
intake valve 1.80, exhaust 1.425. intake 74@100, 122@200, 163@300, 184@400, 193@500, 197@550. exhaust 45@100, 82@200, 102@300, 110@400, 123@500, 126@550. 1.6 roller rockers. compression 9.8. comp cam fast ramp was 216-224 on 110 lsa and 105 centerline, 489-486 lift. cam was a little big for bottom end. a better cam for that small block on the street, i think would be 216-216 on a 109 lsa and 105 centerline, 489-489 lift. had plenty of mid and top end turned on about 3000-3200 if i remember right. 3.23 gear and 2-speed sp tranny.
Thanks. I'll need more information on the cam you're using, and the one you want to test. Information needed is durations @.006 (or 'closed/seat' or 'advertised' it may be called), and better yet, the valve timing events so I can see if it's a symmetric lobe design or not. Some of those fast ramp high intensity cams, especially from Comp Cams, are asymmetric (if memory serves). Their specific grind numbers at varying lifts of the lobe are secret for competition purposes I suppose, but I believe getting the valve timing events and/or durations @.006 will allow me to get as close as possible to the actual specs. It should be good enough for the number crunching and dyno program anyway. May not be 100% spot on, but will be pretty close. Also, anything special done to the intake, such as port matching or improved flow over stock design? CFM of carb (didn't you say a 750)? Headers? If so, which sized primaries and collectors, exhaust system used, type of mufflers, size of exhaust/mufflers, any crossover used (H or X pipe), or if you're using exhaust manifolds, was anything done to them to improve them (port/polish, etc.), and what is the exit port diameter? I'll need this information too. :TU: Please forgive if you've already given the info. Looks like much was done to improve flow from .400 to .500, which is good for the cam you use. These heads will benefit from a larger cam. Not much gained from .500 to .550, so that's your lift limitation. For symmetric lobes, overshooting the lift a bit over .500 would be beneficial. For asymmetric, you could benefit from a lobe that kept lift within the .400 to .500 longer and would last longer because it'd be easier on your valvetrain, etc. It's important for everyone to understand that it's not what your heads flow so much as it is where they flow it. This will let you better match a camshaft to your heads. That and knowing your intake valve closing point @.006 or 'seat' to match with your static compression so you can get your dynamic compression somewhere around 7.75:1 with iron heads (about half a point or so higher for aluminum heads) for use with premium pump fuel, providing your temperature is set to match (running 180* thermostat is recommended, but may be different based on preference and adjustment to detonation resistance). Remember that warmer running engines are more efficient and wear less, oil lasts longer with moisture evaporating better, etc. but will require more octane/less compression. Also to consider is overlap and cam powerband usage coupled with exhaust scavenging. This will increase the cylinder pressure at higher RPMs (increasing the "Effective Compression"), and will affect octane requirement. The formula for this is complex and highly dynamic with variables involved that aren't easily known, if any of that makes sense. lol Gary
sorry Gary, that was wrong cam lift. it was .500-.500 lift, intake 129*duration @ .200,exhaust 133*@.200. .06 was 260-275, the advertise normally mess up the desk top dyno makes a fast ramp cam look smaller. anyways stock exhaust manifold that were ceramic coated with a little port work. 2.5 exhaust with x-pipe and borla mufflers. run the 750 edelbrock it liked the cfm over the 650 cfm i tried, intake manifold had a lot of work done to flow better and work done with the 4-hole design but still keeping most of the 4- hole. intake opens at 3 btdc and close at 33 abdc..exhaust opens at 47 bbdc and close at 3- atdc. that about all i know or can tell you.
Do you have the cam card? Show lobe specs, since rocker ratio will put valve movement different. The dyno program I use doesn't come with advanced lobe lift/duration considerations, just .050 and .006. I use a special 'fill in the blanks' method outside of the dyno program using the computer's calculator, and average numbers. It seems to come out fairly accurate, so far as I know based on feedback from board members when showing my results. Symmetric lobes are a piece of cake to calculate. Asymmetric can be challenging, especially when exact symmetry is unknown, so I give it my 'best guess' treatment, which is hit and miss as we've seen earlier in this thread, but for use in the dyno program, I think I've ironed out the inconsistencies. Anyway, all that aside, I think I can do something with this information. Again to confirm, cam specs are .500/.500 I/E (with 1.6 rocker ratio), and 216/224 I/E durations @.050, with 260/275 I/E durations @.006. Wow that's intense. lol Give me some time. I may need to get some sleep before I tackle it, as I've been up all night working. Calculations forthcoming. One more thing: is exhaust mandrel bent or press bent? Are the Borla mufflers straight through design (perforated tube with packing) or 'turbo' style? Gary
This program will show raw data, and considerations for massage techniques/blueprinting are too dynamic to be known on a program such as this without your actual engine being hooked up to it, which is why a real world dyno is much better. It'll give a general idea though, and RPMs should be pretty accurate. It's fun to use though. You know I'm a nerd when I do math for FUN... Gary
only thing left on card says .3130 lobe lift intake and exhaust. mandrel bent with straight through they were rated top for horsepower. like i posted i would have liked the other cam more, with intake on exhaust on the 216*@.50 with 260* @.006 on a 109 lsa.
A 260* intake duration is usually seen on smaller cams, yes. "Fast Ramp" means it opens and/or closes fast, hence the name. What makes it fast is the shortened distance between .006 (or 'closed') and .050 positions. Less distance between them means less distance traveled, which takes less time, hence 'fast'. It's pretty simply if you break it down. 260 minus 216 is all it is. The number we get is 44. What this number means is there are 44* between .006 and .050 positions. This is called the 'hydraulic intensity' for hydraulic lifters, or simply 'lobe intensity' in a general sense. This number is what we use to determine how harsh a camshaft will be on the valvetrain, and also how much differently it will perform. Generally speaking, 55* is the 'smallest' number you want to go for cam intensity for any amount of desired longevity. Your mileage may vary, of course. People who do this as a hobby and only drive their machines occasionally will get many years of enjoyment out of their super intense cams. Usually, the more intense a cam is, the more power you will get from it. There is a tradeoff, afterall, and without any positives, why bother right? One method I use to determine power output and RPMs is to take .006 and .050, add them together and divide by 2 to get the average. It works out pretty well. With a cam of this nature, there will be less difference between the two. Greater spring pressures are required with more intense lobe profiles because the increased speed in ramp rate makes it more difficult for the lifter to follow the lobe (particularly on the closing side) without greater pressure against them to hold them together. An unfortunate side effect of this is that it tends to increase wear, which exacerbates wear conditions on the already intense lobe. Careful attention is paid to these cams today with hardening processes so they will last longer, and excellent lubrication is required. Anyway, enough of that. I'm in the midst of calculating stuff right now. Stay tuned. Ok the cam specs you gave checked out in the calculator. One thing I'm seeing here is a 55* intake valve closing point, coupled with 9.8:1 static compression you gave turns out to be 8.41:1 dynamic compression. A couple things must be true in order for this car to be street worthy: Either the static compression is incorrect, or you use race fuel in your engine. That dynamic compression would be much too intense for 93 octane without some serious timing retarding, 160* stat, and very light throttle in cooler weather. If neither of these things are true, then the 260* @.006 intake duration is inaccurate. The combustion chambers would need to be polished to a sheen, a quench area present and custom pistons to accommodate it, which it may have. Either way, I'll continue with the calculations as is. Ok calculations show 379.5 ft. lbs. @3125 RPM with 282.5 hp @4625 RPM. Power is concentrated steeply inside this area, with some overrev potential apparent in the trend due to (I suspect) the head flow fighting against the cam's tendency to restrict the RPMs to a more concentrated spectrum. Translation: it can rev higher than indicated, but power trails off as expected, just not as steeply as may be indicated by just the cam. My conclusion is that it would benefit from a cam that has a wider powerband, both down low and up high. This would require a camshaft ground on milder lobe intensities, and would give positive results not necessarily intuitive to traditional results from other engines of this type/displacement. This is reinforced by the fact that you use the ST300 transmission, which tends to need a wider powerband with street gears. Remember these are raw numbers. Actual power output will likely be higher depending on other factors not considered within the limited environment of static numbers. Let me know if these conclusions ring any bells or show signs of being remotely accurate. We can work on something if you desire a better camshaft for your machine. :TU: Gary
Interestingly enough, I put in stock Buick 350 cam specs just for ****s n giggles: Peak power is at the exact same RPMs as the Comp Cams cam, both torque and horsepower, but with a much broader powerband (more down low below peak torque (starting around 2200 RPM), and more hp above peak hp, up to 5400 RPM), although peak power numbers are considerably less with this much, MUCH milder cam (no surprise there). Compression was left intact, though 10.21:1 would bring dynamic compression up to 7.75:1, which is still much less than the 8.41:1 shown when using the Comp Cams cam in this combination. Peak torque was 352.5 ft. lbs. @3125 RPM with 261.5 hp @4625 RPM. This is actually more in line with what the 'stock OEM' cam was sitting at for the 340, if I'm not mistaken. Obviously, these raw numbers do not reflect the other dynamics involved that would surely raise these numbers even higher on a real world dyno. The Comp Cams inside that combination adds 27 ft. lbs. and 21 hp over a cam that would be deemed 'stock' for that engine's era. This shows how more intense lobe profiles will add power by concentrating it within the powerband, but what these numbers do not show is the sharp peaks the Comp Cams cam has vs the 'stock' cam, which has much gentler slopes on either side of the peaks, making the cam weaker, but with better lower and higher ranges outside the peaks. Not to mention it would last 10x longer...but people don't care about that when it's just a hobby, right? This was a low lift, asymmetric lobe inside a head that flows well past the engineering design of the cam. Increase the lift of the stock cam to the same lift as the Comp Cams cam (.3130/.3130 times 1.6 is .5008/.5008 =.501/.501 rounded), using the same durations and centerlines of the stock Buick 350 cam, bump compression to ideal 7.75:1 (which is STILL less than the current combo) and the story changes even more: Peak torque rises to 366.5 @3250 RPM with 280.5 hp @4725 RPM. Powerband went up slightly, with more power added vs the pure stock form and lower dynamic compression. It now sits at only 2 hp less than the Comp Cams cam, with 13 less ft. lbs., but even at .501 lift, is still way milder with a 2.25 ramp rate vs the 2.88 ramp rate of the Comp Cams cam, with the addition of a much wider powerband. This 'modded stock 350 cam' pulls strong to 6000 RPM, trailing off slower than the more intense cam in it now. Raise the DCR to the same as the Comp Cams cam in it now (8.41:1 DCR; this took 11.05:1 SCR @71* IVC point), and... 377.5 ft. lbs. with 290.5 hp at the same RPMs as above. This is only 2 ft. lbs. less and 8 hp MORE than the Comp Cams cam. That's with a stock Buick 350 cam with .501 lift using an apples to apples same DCR comparison. Even ported, these heads and the use of manifolds with this combination are the restriction. You could easily get 350+ hp with better heads and cam (and headers). As it is now, with all things considered, you may have 300-310 hp tops, and that's considering the dynamics, which I'm just guessing at, so take it for what it is (a guess). This shows why it's important to match the lift to the flow@lift on heads, and why the stock Buick 350 cam fits the stock flowing Buick 350 heads (sorry to change the subject a bit, but it makes a good point). Gary
If I may be permitted a small, temporary side-track... Call it BS if you want, it's just numbers I punched in to various calculators, trying to show different combinations and results without having to build dozens of engine combinations and 10's of thousands of dollars doing so. A much cheaper alternative, and gives a good enough general idea and sense of direction of where one may wish to go. Having said that, my final draft for the Buick 350's blueprinted stock form comes to a no-nonsense solid 393 ft. lbs. @2900 RPM and 313 hp @5000 RPM using the Federal Mogul CS647 camshaft and TA's Stage 1 swirl polished valves (1.92 intake, 1.55 exhaust), mild head cleanup, and engine massaging/polishing of manifolds, with good power all the way to ~5500 RPM and overrev to a 6000 RPM redline, which is never advised to exceed using stock rods (playing it safe). This is the Buick 350-4 using the 750 CFM Quadrajet and 10.21:1 compression, 195* thermostat, iron manifolds, and safe to use with 93 octane unleaded premium pump fuel at sea level. Life expectancy with regular maintenance is in excess of 200k miles before anything major needs to be done. Ok, back to the regularly scheduled material. Gary
the cam specs came off the cam card. the quench was perfect with .005 below deck. there was no pinging on 93, the 340 head chamber was a good design. thinking it needed a smaller cam any bigger cam with higher advertise duration the bottom end would be really soft. headers would have gave me the low torque which would have made it a even better mild street build. i sold the car couple years ago might buy it back. that 216-216 on 109 LSA would have been nice for the street stop light to stop light. tried to have a good balance and juggle the build with a small block 3.23 gears and a 2-speed. it ran low to mid 14s.
Great stuff Gary, but you're forgetting the IMO one of the most important factors there is when comparing the 2 different camshafts in the same engine which is, what is the average HP and torque for the 2 different cams? If the Federal Mogul cam does better on average than the CC cam that would make it win hands down. Does your simulator make the average numbers available? If not if you add up the numbers in the HP column and divide by how many you added together that will give the average and the same for torque.(I know you know this, just writing it in case someone else reading this didn't know) I would of done it myself but you only posted peaks, thanks. Derek
I did the unthinkable and didn't worry about calculations... I simply removed the 2brl carb and intake and installed a 4brl intake and 600cfm carb on my '64 Special with no other mods, single exhaust and all. It worked fine with increased power across the board, with a very noticeable bump in max RPMs. I also got a bump in low end grunt as well, it will burn the tires from a dead stop now, it wouldn't before, so theres that. It bares mentioning that when I got the car it had tiny ''14s and would light-em-up fine, then I put 245/60/15s on the back and the bone stock burnouts stopped ou:
4 barrel and dual exh. Was first thing I always did to try and let the engine get more fuel and air and get it out the back. Always seemed to work. I use to love the sound of that q-jet when I stomped it to the floor even on factory engine.:eek2:
Well I had to recant my previous statements about how the 4 barrel would lose bottom end because it is true for the 350, then I started doing calculations for the 300/340 and it turns out the 4 barrel is better across the board for those engines because of head design, so yes. Powerband is moved up slightly, but not enough to really worry about. So in conclusion, adding a (small) 4 barrel and (small tube) dual exhaust, say 2" press bent from a muffler shop would be fine, would add more power to a factory 2 barrel engine down lower as well as adding some up high as well as increasing upper RPMs. Adding a large 4 barrel wouldn't so much though. A 600-650 CFM would be plenty for a stock 300/340. Using one of those Edelbrock 500 CFM performer carbs would be what I'd do if it were mine. Excellent mileage and good velocity. Those carbs have slightly smaller primaries too, so it's kind of a hybrid between a square bore and spread bore, but uses a square bore hole intake. Also worth mentioning is that the 2 barrel is still a good option if one could not get their hands on a 4 barrel intake, just increase the size of the 2 barrel as much as you could get it, up to around 350-500 CFM... So yeah. Calculations are good. I'll get around to the averages in a while, Derek. Good call by the way. I didn't think about that, duh. Gary
