Assembled TA Rover Heads (getting ready for the flow bench)

[roverman]

FWIW, my WAG is intake port height is becoming a flow limiting factor, on the higher valve lifts ?  roverman.

[pcmenten]

Dan Jones' report of porting TA cylinder heads

Stock 4.6 heads with 1.575" intake valves,
vs. ported 300 heads with 1.775" intake valves
vs. out-of-the-box TA heads with 1.94" intake valves
vs ported TA heads with 1.94" intake valves
vs ported TA heads with back-cut 1.94" intake valves

'back-cut' means the valves were given a 30 degree back-cut.

Intake

<table border="3">
<tr> <td>Lift</td> <td>4.6</td> <td>B 300 P</td><td>Orig TA</td> <td>Ported</td> <td>back-cut</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>dia.</td> <td>1.575"</td><td>1.775"</td><td>1.94"</td><td>1.94"</td><td>1.94"</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.100</td> <td>60.2</td> <td>66</td> <td>67.7</td> <td>76.8</td> <td>78.3</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.200</td> <td>105.4</td> <td>129</td> <td>105.4</td> <td>120.4</td> <td>129.4</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.300</td> <td>132.4</td> <td>174</td> <td>143.0</td> <td>173.1</td> <td>185.1</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.350</td> <td>135.5</td> <td>187</td> <td>164.0</td> <td>198.7</td> <td>206.2</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.400</td> <td>135.5</td> <td>191</td> <td>185.1</td> <td>224.2</td> <td>225.8</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.500</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>196</td> <td>220.9</td> <td>255.9</td> <td>251.3</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.600</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>200</td> <td>225.8</td> <td>(n/a)</td> <td>252.8</td> </tr>
</table>


Exhaust

<table border="3">
<tr> <td>Lift</td> <td>4.6</td> <td>B 300 P</td><td>Original</td> <td>Ported</td></tr>
<tr> <td>dia.</td>         <td>1.35"</td> <td>1.5"</td> <td>1.6"</td> <td>1.6"</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.100</td> <td>57.4</td> <td>47</td> <td>47.9</td> <td>63.8</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.200</td> <td>92.5</td> <td>104</td> <td>70.2</td> <td>108.5</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.300</td> <td>103.7</td> <td>130</td> <td>102.1</td> <td>146.7</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.350</td> <td>106.9</td> <td>139</td> <td>114.9</td> <td>n/a</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.400</td> <td>106.9</td> <td>146</td> <td>126.0</td> <td>177.0</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.500</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>152</td> <td>137.2</td> <td>189.8</td> </tr>
<tr> <td>0.600</td> <td>n/a</td> <td>153</td> <td>140.4</td> <td>199.4</td> </tr>
</table>
I'm very curious to understand why the ported 300 heads did so well. I've heard Vizard suggest that shallow, open heads benefit from a 30 degree valve job - better low-lift flow. I'm wondering what magic Dan performed on these 300 heads.

Paul

[roverman]

AIR., Mr. Vizard only discussed 30deg on intake side, but not comparing heads with measurable shrouding of the intake valve, by being located off-center in the bore, (Buick/Rover). I suspect a 30 deg. int. would be more prone to shrouding.  Onward, roverman.

[Todd McCreary]

Hah.

I think Paul is the poasting professional you need to ask for advice.  If you view page source, you can see that he's using table, td and tr tags.

I feel like such a noob.

Hey Dan, do we have flow numbers for most of the OEM Rover heads?  I'd be curious to see Olds numbers, I'm sure you Rover guys would like to know if there are certain Rover castings that really suck.

[Dan Jones]

> I'm very curious to understand why the ported 300 heads did so well.

Those Buick 300 heads were fitted with larger seats and Ferrea 6000 series Buick V6 Stage 1 stainless steel valves (1.775" intake and 1.5" exhaust).  Intakes have a 10 degree "Super Flo" head shape while the exhausts are 29 degree tulips.  The heads were hand ported by Jon Carls of JDC Engineering in Minonk, IL.   I supplied Jon with a corroded Buick 300 head which he used to determine the casting material thickness limits.  Given that the unported heads flowed 154/116 CFM @ 0.600" lift, he did a very good job.  The exhaust to intake flow ratio and low to mid-lift numbers are quite good.   I added a set of Harland Sharp Harland Sharp adjustable roller rockers on new shafts and D&D end stands.  The plan is to dyno test those on the 5.0L Rover mystery motor.  That engine is supposed to be very high compression (flat top pistons with welded chamber extrude-honed Rover cylinder heads) so the larger chambers should put the compression ratio in the right ballpark for a pump gas high performance street motor.  If the engine needs new pistons, I might put the TA Performance Rover heads on and sell the ported Buick 300 heads and matching Huffaker intake.  We won't know until we dyno it for a baseline and then tear it apart which won't happen before May at the earliest.

Dan Jones

P.S. Thanks for putting the flow data in a table, Paul.

[Dan Jones]

> I'd be curious to see Olds numbers,

I've not flowed any Oldsmobile heads myself but have some numbers in the database
from the September-December 2003 issue of the British V8 Newsletter.  In that
issue, Kurt Schley reports the results of a maximum porting effort on a set of
Olds 215 heads (the 51 cc version, casting suffix -746).  Those larger combustion
chamber Olds heads were destined for a 289 cubic inch stroker Olds 215 (welded
iron 3.75" stroke crank).  The porting was performed by Dwayne Porter (c/o Motion
Machine 802-951-1955).  The article does not say what pressure drop the heads were
tested at but states the flow numbers were corrected to 28" H2O.  This means the
heads were flowed at some lower pressure drop and ratio'd by the square root of
the ratio of the pressure drops.  Valve train used:

 Ferrea P/N F6223 (Intake valve for a Ford 2.3L), 1.74" head diameter, 
 11/32" diameter stem, 4.8 long, 0.4" tip.
 Ferrea P/N F6224 (Exhaust valve for a Ford 2.3L), 1.50" head diameter, 
 11/32" diameter stem, 4.8 long, 0.4" tip.
 Comp Cams valve springs P/N COM-901-16 (ouer spring with damper)
 1.5" OD, 1.080" ID, 110 lbs @ 1.65" load at checking height, 
 290 lbs @ 1.150" load at open height , 1.110" coil bind height
 Comp Cams retainers P/N COM-743-16 steel 7 degrees lock angle.

The valve head diameters were reduced to 1.62"/1.4", so the stock valve seats 
could be retained.

Test #1 Stock head 1.525"/1.35" valves
Test #2 Stock valves but full head porting, intake opened to 1.70" x 1.00",
        30 degree back cut on valves, competition valve job
Test #3 As Test #2 but with 1.62" intake valves, 1.40" exhaust valves
        (intake and exhaust backcut)
Test #4 As Test #3 but intakes opened to 1.80" X 1.00", fully polished
        runners, guides streamline

        Test #1          Test #2          Test #3         Test #4
 Valve  Stock Olds       Ported Olds      Pored Olds      Ported Olds
 Lift   215 heads        215 heads        215 heads       215 heads
 (inch) Intake  Exhaust  Intake  Exhaust  Intake Exhaust  Intake Exhaust
        1.525"  1.350"   1.525"  1.350"   1.620"  1.400"  1.620"  1.400"

 0.100    43     35        48     36        51     45       51     46
 0.150    63     52        72     55        77     64       77     64
 0.200    85     65        95     73       104     76      104     78
 0.250   104     73       111     85       128     88      128     90
 0.300   116     77       124     96       146     99      147    101
 0.350   122     80       138    105       159    108      161    112
 0.400   128     81       150    110       168    114      172    118
 0.450   133     84       158    114       168    119      173    123
 0.500   134     84       165    119       170    124      174    126
 0.550   136     84       168    120       173    126      176    129
 0.600   136     84       168    122       174    127      178    130 

> Hey Dan, do we have flow numbers for most of the OEM Rover heads?

I've only flowed the one set of 4.6L Rover heads listed above.  I've got some
numbers in the database from a local head porter who is no longer in business
for 3.9L Rover heads.  Those heads look very similar to the post SD1 3.5L
Rover heads I've seen.  The baseline and light port were with the OEM valves
but I don't know the valve sizes for the Stage 4 heads:

        Rover 3.9L        Rover 3.9L        Rover 3.9L
 Lift   aluminum heads    aluminum heads    aluminum heads
        Baseline          Light Port        Stage 4 Porting

0.200    92.2   72.2      101.4    78.7      96.7    80.1
0.300   132.6   85.7      136.5    94.0     143.9   106.6
0.400   143.3   89.5      149.8   100.6     177.1   127.0
0.450   145.7   90.5      152.7   102.5     180.6   134.3
0.500   147.7   91.3      153.0   103.5     181.0   139.7
0.550   148.0   91.6      153.0   104.4     181.0   142.8

The guy I bought the assembled TA Performance Rover heads from has a set of
maximum effort Jon Eales ported Rover heads on his Woody Cooper 4.9L Rover.  
Woody mentioned they were $3500 plus shipping.  I wonder if he has the flow
sheets on those. Woody runs a set of ported and extrude honed Buick 300
heads on his 4.9L Rover stroker.  I think I asked and he said he didn't have
any flow bench numbers on those.

One of the guys on the TR8 list, had larger intake valves installed in his
Rover 3.5L heads ported with larger intake valves.  Results were:

        Rover 3.5L 
Lift    Intake   Intake 
Inch    Unported Ported
0.100    47.0     55.9    
0.200    96.5    113.6
0.300   135.7    156.6
0.400   146.1    171.4
0.500   147.2    175.9

> I'm sure you Rover guys would like to know if there are certain Rover castings
> that really suck.

The later 4.0L/4.6L heads look to be the best of the lot with slight larger
ports and valves but, in unported form, your probably only talking a difference
of 10 CFM or so.  That's in the noise when comparing results from different
benches and pressure drops.

Dan Jones

[MGBV8]

The later 4.0L/4.6L heads look to be the best of the lot with slight larger
ports and valves but, in unported form, your probably only talking a difference
of 10 CFM or so. That's in the noise when comparing results from different
benches and pressure drops.

They still aren't very good, but the latest Rover heads are a good deal better than the stock Buick 215 heads.

[Robrover]

The Buick 300 heads on my 4.6 SD1 flow 193 cfm at 550 thou (1.75 inlet).

They were done on a flow bench by Holden/Ford V8 head guru Eddy Woods at the Head Stud Development Co in Melbourne, and they were originally destined for a 5.0 litre Leyland P76 motor

Standard P76 was about 132 cfm at the same lift (P76 heads were the same as the early  Rover P6B heads). I think the later post 1976 SD1 Rover heads flowed about 148cfm at the same lift, with Stage 4 Rover heads around 181. Stock 300 heads flow 153 cfm at 550.

In the UK, Merlin F85 heads have been maxed out to flow about 185 cfm.

I believe Lanocha in the US has flowed over 200cfm from Buick 300 aluminium heads which was sufficient to support 425 hp on a maximum-effort, high-compression, normally aspirated 5.0 litre TR8, and that's using a single-four-barrel Daemon Racing carb on a Willpower open plenum inlet manifold, not efi.

[Dan Jones]

I finally got around to taking some pictures of the TA Rover heads.  As mentioned earlier, they received a bowl porting and chamber polishing:




On the intake side, only a minor amount of material was removed to match the ports to the Willpower single plane intake manifold (drilled for EFI):





The exhaust ports received the bulk of the porting and were enlarged to fit larger 1 5/8" primary tri-y headers (Kirk Racing design as sold by Woody Cooper of the The Wedge Shop and Ted Schumacher at TSI):



Here's a shot showing the TRS logo (Triumph Rover Spares) and also the TA Performance logo:



Dan Jones

[crashbash]

What difference does indexing plugs make with heads like these vs less precisely engineered stock heads?  Does indexing plugs make much of a  difference  anyways?

[BlownMGB-V8]

Just curious Dan, did those heads come direct from TA or through TRS? (Wondering if their logo is a part of shared development costs.)

I like what you've done with the exhaust ports. That's always been a weakness with Buick heads.

Jim

[roverman]

Nice job on the porting/chambers.  Got ported cc's of int./exh. ?  Cheers, Art.

[Dan Jones]

> What difference does indexing plugs make with heads like these vs less precisely engineered stock heads? Does indexing plugs make much of a difference anyways?

I've never tested indexing on a dyno.  Joe Sherman says he has never seen any power increase from indexing but did say he's seen a 5 HP increase from long reach plugs.

> did those heads come direct from TA or through TRS? (Wondering if their logo is a part of shared development costs.)

Directly from TA.  

> I like what you've done with the exhaust ports. That's always been a weakness with Buick heads.

200 CFM on the exhaust is quite a lot for the cubic inches.  I'll most likely go with a single pattern cam.

> Got ported cc's of int./exh.

I've not measured the runner volumes but can add it to my list.  In general, I use runner length and minimum/maximum cross-sectional areas instead of runner volume.  Bob clearanced the combustion chambers to around 42cc then milled them 0.020" to get them to 37cc.

The ported OEM Rover heads off of the Rover 5.0L look pretty good.  They are based upon 3.9L casting and have had the chambers welded to 23 ccs.  I'm going to get them flow benched soon and will post some pictures later.

Dan Jones

[BlownMGB-V8]

>Direct from TA

I suspected as much. This seems to confirm my early suspicion that TRS subsidized the development of these heads, also buying all or most of the first production run as part of the deal. Certainly a valid way to conduct business, hopefully TRS managed to recoup their investment. It's fortunate for us (and TA of course) that the heads can be bought directly at a price consistent with their other offerings. I am a bit surprised however, that their website did not list them as aftermarket heads for the 300 and 340 Buick engines. Most enthusiasts would figure this out, but that probably lost them a few sales.

Jim

[Nexxussian]

Jim, I got to hold one of the machined bare castings at TA in Phoenix (while standing next to a pallet of them ).

In speaking with them, I gather TRS committed to buy enough of them justify the investment in the tooling, casting and developing the CNC code for the basic machining (costs I can think of off the top of my head).

[BlownMGB-V8]

Which explains why the Rover heads moved ahead of the Buick 350 heads and intake projects, as a few of us thought at the time. There is no such incentive for either a 300 or 340 intake, and the two markets are spit from each other as well (340 in Buick-land and 300 in MG-land) so I'm pretty confident we will never see an aftermarket intake from TA for either of these engines unless they just run out of other things to do. They are currently back to developing the 350 parts, which we will never use here due to the external engine size, despite ready availability of many cheap engines and good durability. We have better choices.

But the Rover heads represent a potent equalizer in the HP race. You put those on a 300 block at 300 or 350 cu.in. with good pistons and a relatively hot cam, combined with RV8 headers and a decent exhaust and you can make some real power. Dish in some power adders like nitrous or boost and now the SBF's weaker block becomes the limiting factor, as some of the SBB engines have been making reliable power at the 700 hp level.

Yes, the heads are expensive. But so is a 302 conversion kit. I think the cost is basically comparable, so this is a chance to level the field once again between the two brands.

Dan, how would you compare the potential of the TA heads against the more popular brands of 302 heads? You use both, I'm sure your opinion will be essentially unbiased.

Jim

[Dan Jones]

> Dan, how would you compare the potential of the TA heads against the more popular brands of 302 heads? You use both, I'm sure your opinion will be essentially unbiased.

The TA heads have quite good potential and can rival similar valve size SBF heads.  Exhaust is (after the porting that mine received) likely better than most SBF heads.  There are many SBF heads with various combustion chamber volumes, spring packages, valve diameters and minimum cross-sectional areas so it's easier to match a head against an engine with a particular displacement and RPM range but I think the bigger discriminator are the supporting parts.  The SBF benefits from having several excellent intake manifolds, larger base circle cams, larger diameter lifters, larger rocker ratios, etc.   Some of the better flowing SBF heads like the AFR 165 have moved to valves with smaller 8mm stems which could also be applied to the TA heads.

Dan Jones

[MGBV8]

Dan,

Have you measured the actual stroke of your 4.2 crankshaft? Kevin Jackson (castlesid) said his was less than 3.03. In fact, he stated that his Land Rover data sheet lists the range as 76.222-76.759mm.  Kinda messes with the calculations, a bit.

I am very interested in your build. I am doing a very low budget version.  I have two 3.9 Rovers in my garage. One is a complete engine, the other is a crank, block, rods, & heads, plus a set of late 4.0 heads with springs for the Crower 50232 that I bought many years ago. Thanks to Glenn Towery, I also have a 4.2L crank I plan to use, along with an Edelbrock manifold & a NASCAR Holley 390 for autox.

Quench. I have been playing with various piston & rod length choices trying to find a good combination with good quench & reasonable compression with my late Rover heads. Doesn't seem possible. Then i look at the Rover heads & wonder why I am even worrying about quench. Quench, what quench? These things are nothing like SBC.

[ddelong1]

I'm a bit late to this party but glad I found this thread.  I'm building a 4.0L with TA heads for an MGB V8 racecar.  My heads are box-stock as received from TA and I just them put on a flow bench:

Lift     Int     Exh
.100   65.2   56.1
.200   113.8  84.1
.300   161    110
.400   198.2  126.6
.500   230.7  136.5
.600   242.1  141
.700   240.3   143.5

Springs are TA1125AL offerings, 145lbs closed pressure and 325 open.  I'm using the stud mount rocker setup and Crower roller rockers.  I've got a Willpower intake being ported now to match the heads and do some cleanup in the plenum, it appears there was core shift during casting so it's a little off center.  I'll post some photos when I have the intake back.  My short block has custom forged pistons for ~12:1 compression and I'm running a Crower Cam, grind 50305 (INT/EXH - Dur @ .050" Lift: 256°/262° RR: 1.6/1.6 Gross Lift: .536"/.549" LSA: 108° RPM: 3000 to 6500 Redline: 7500).  

Dan - do you happen to know what water neck fits the Willpower intake?  I haven't bought that yet and am not sure what fits, I was hoping for a small block chevy piece to bolt on.  Also, can you tell me what plug you ended up choosing?

[minorv8]

If a  water neck is the same thing as thermostat housing I used a factory Rover V8  EFi thermostat housing on my Willpower manifold.

[BlownMGB-V8]

Looks like the TA heads really benefit a lot from exhaust porting in particular. I'm glad to see that. Maybe a set of TA heads are in my future at some point.

Jim

[roverman]

Doug, Break-in of that cam, with those springs, will be critical !  Can't run a roller ?  Good Luck, roverman.

[MGBV8]

Remove the inner spring for cam break-in.

[Dan Jones]

> Have you measured the actual stroke of your 4.2 crankshaft?

I have not.  The new-old-stock 4.2L is still assembled and wrapped in plastic.  However, the high RPM 4.2L is disassembled so I could check that crankshaft.

> Kevin Jackson (castlesid) said his was less than 3.03.

I can believe that.  Also, the deck height can vary.

> I am very interested in your build. I am doing a very low budget version.

Is that a low budget version of my low budget 4.2L or my high RPM 4.2L?

> along with an Edelbrock manifold & a NASCAR Holley 390 for autox.

Have you used the NASCAR Holley 390 before?  I've wondered how well those would work.  They are optimized for much larger displacement engines that use the carb as a restriction.  I'd be surprised if the tricky bits of the calibration (bleeds, PVCRs, etc.) are even in the ballpark for a Rover V8.

> Quench. I have been playing with various piston & rod length choices trying to find a good combination with good quench & reasonable compression with my late Rover heads.

You're probably looking at custom pistons.  I've got a request for a quote for forged pistons but haven't heard back on price or lead time.

> Quench, what quench? These things are nothing like SBC.

My ported Rover 3.9L heads have had the chambers welded up to 23 ccs and have a distinct quench pad.  Likewise the ported TA Performance Rover heads have a quench chamber.  A friend is looking to have his ported 300 heads welded up as well.  With unmodified Rover combustion chambers, it looks like a circular dish with a flush outer perimeter providing quench from 360 degrees around would be as good as you could do.

Dan

[Dan Jones]

> Springs are TA1125AL offerings, 145lbs closed pressure and 325 open.

That's more spring pressure than I'm comfortable using on a flat tappet cam these days.  If your heads came with steel retainers you might consider offset titanium retainers to provide a bit less pressure.

> I'm using the stud mount rocker setup and Crower roller rockers.

What ratio did you go with?  TA recommended 1.65:1 ratio.

> Dan - do you happen to know what water neck fits the Willpower intake?

I was told it takes a small block Chevy water neck but have not confirmed.  I also need the fuel injection rails.

> Also, can you tell me what plug you ended up choosing?

I haven't chosen plugs yet.  I still need to measure the reach required.  Might be worth a call to TA and see what they recommend.

Dan Jones