New heads • The Dodge Challenger Message Board

by **dave-r** » 26 Sep 2007 20:54

I like the look of these babys. :wink:

http://www.440source.com/heads.htm

by **Eddie** » 26 Sep 2007 21:22

I already called Brandon. I am getting a set as soon as they are available. :wink:

by **Jon** » 27 Sep 2007 13:10

Stop drooling on your keyboard guy's. :lol:

They look to be a fair price to boot.

by **Eddie** » 27 Sep 2007 13:20

For 899.00! you cant get that CFM out of 899.00 worth of porting on any Chrysler heads. :thumbsup:

by **dave-r** » 27 Sep 2007 15:22

Only $699 for the bare castings. :s017:

I could swap over everything from my existing heads to those if I wanted to.

However I don't think they flow any better than my ported 906s and being aluminium I would have to change the pistons and get the crank balanced for various reasons.

If I was starting from scratch though I would use them. Paint them up and the almost (but not quite) look like stock. The headers would hide most of the non-stock looks though.

by **drewcrane** » 27 Sep 2007 20:32

sometimes the heads are a little longer than stock, i know my edelebrock heads are bigger in size than stock so i did have some minor mods to do , but to get them for under a grand and port them it would still be cheaper than cast heads , at least im my neck of the woods,and they are soooo light it is amazing i carried both my heads in 1 arm with nio back strain, and they are easier to remove from the engine compartment, run cooler too!

by **Eddie** » 27 Sep 2007 20:36

Also the eddies heads which I use on my 440 are milled flat and tapped for the alternator and such. These 440 source heads use an old style casting core plug end that looks like the stock heads when painted Hemi Orange. :thumbsup:

by **dave-r** » 27 Sep 2007 21:22

drewcrane wrote: run cooler too!

That is the problem with ally heads. They take the heat away from the chamber. This does too things;

1/
They make the combustion cooler which means the combustion pressure is lower. Combustion pressure is what makes torque. So to increase the pressure you have to increase the static compression ratio.

If had a engine running well with iron heads and then swap the heads for alluminium with no other changes you will make less power.

2/
Because the heat of combustion is being transfered away to the water jacket the water heats up at a faster rate. So if your cooling system is marginal it will start overheating. Always make sure your cooling system can cope before fitting ally heads.

The only benifits of ally heads is their weight and their easy for porting. Plus they are generally cast with better port shapes anyway.

As a material iron is actually a much better material to make cylinder heads from.

by **Eddie** » 27 Sep 2007 21:58

Excellent points Dave! It's funny how alloy heads get all the glamour and technology. If I could get a set of INDY-440-1's in Cast Iron, fully ported for a decent price I would buy em in a heart beat. I'm weird, weight isnt that important of an issue with me or this motor I am building because there is a good chance it may end up in my truck, :twisted:

and with that I would rather use cast iron for it's extra durability issues concerning detonation and cylinder efficiency and for these reasons cast iron cant be beat. :thumbsup:

by **Jon** » 27 Sep 2007 22:41

Great information guy's. I really didn't understand the reasoning behind aluminum heads, save the weight. :thumbsup:

by **dave-r** » 28 Sep 2007 9:14

I will try writing in English the next time tough. :oops:

I must have been tired. :roll:

by **Jon** » 28 Sep 2007 13:11

Made perfect sense to me Dave.

by **drewcrane** » 28 Sep 2007 18:05

i undertsood everything dave good points ,i have 10:1/2 to 1 ratio, but it makes sense that aluminum heads make less power cause the drag guys swear by cast iron heads, i will say this the very first thing i noticed, was the weight transfer from the front to the back resulting in better traction, and running a big block on a road course car is a sin but the weight savings is nice for road racing, but maybe not so much for drags

by **Eddie** » 28 Sep 2007 18:37

I did it for that Drew! The handling aspect. I could have ported my 906's but instead I had a plan to remove as much weight off the front end as possible by using the foll: Aluminum Heads, Water Pump, Water Pump Housing, Intake Manifold, Rocker arm covers,(although they are heavier). I figure I removed about 60 Lbs. from the top of the engine at the fender centerline. Which if I recall is the flex point on E-bodies.(front substructure). So this had to help in the handling. I wish I could remove my heavy battery to the rear but it wouldnt look right. :frown:

by **dave-r** » 28 Sep 2007 20:26

You couldn't get decent ally heads when I built my engine first time around which is how I ended up with ported 906s and a 10:1 compression ratio.

The only heads you could get were the MoPar stage V and whatever. Big money at the time and with raised ports you needed special parts to fit I think?

When Edelbrock brought out their ally heads for the small block I contacted them and asked them if they were working on producing a 383/440 head.

I was told that they have no plans at all to make a 440 head as there would be no demand. :shock:

I wrote them a LONG email after that. I told them they were making a BIG mistake and whoever did their market research was an idiot. I told them that if they had a 440 head that took a stock intake and exhaust system they would be onto a big winner as there was a large and GROWING MoPar Muscle movement crying out for such heads.

The market place edelbrock had focused on so far was the Chevy and Ford market. But there was huge competition in that market where as there was ZERO competition in the growing MoPar sector.

Plus the 440 was a much more commonly used performance engine than the small blocks. I said I thought they were wasting their time with those and their marketing guy was stuck in the 70s/80s.

I never heard anything back after that. Next thing I know they announce a 440 head is on its way less than a year later. :roll:

Too late for me by then. I already had Dave Hughes carving out a pair of 906s.

by **Eddie** » 28 Sep 2007 20:43

I remember those days Dave. I think it was the Stage VI that had the casting problems in the mid 90's they were basically 'junk' and needed to be repaired before usage. They had raised intake ports and required spacers to use for raised blocks,(RB), 413,440. Now everyone is making MoPar parts. Dave, have you seen the 440 raised block casting Hughes engines is advertising? He even promises a Low-Deck version soon after the RB version comes out any day. 440 source is even coming out with a heavy walled water jacketed street/strip block this spring 08. Soon it will be fairly cheap to build an "animal" of an engine using all new parts from the block up. Who cares where it's made as long as it's available!! :thumbsup:

by **drewcrane** » 28 Sep 2007 23:37

they have fake batteries, just for that, i think headers are little lighter too, with all the aluminum stuff i weighed it was around 70 to 80 lbs , water pump,housing,march pulleys and brackets, then the heads are about 40 lbs, it does make a difference

by **drewcrane** » 30 Sep 2007 3:39

ya know ,dave if you could have gotten the alloy heads when you built your engine , would you have gotten alloy heads?. one thing for sure a person could run a much higher compression with alloy heads, than with cast iron heads right?, but for the purpose of drag racing , cast iron heads might be the best heads,however me running a 14 sec flat , 17 in wheels, @5800 ft, could possibly (with the right tuning , jetting , etc,)may be i could run a 13.00 flat 1/4 mile,@sea level?

by **dave-r** » 30 Sep 2007 7:10

drewcrane wrote:ya know ,dave if you could have gotten the alloy heads when you built your engine , would you have gotten alloy heads?. one thing for sure a person could run a much higher compression with alloy heads, than with cast iron heads right?,

I don't think you quite grasp what I was saying.
It is not that you can run higher compression with ally heads. You have to run higher compression to make the SAME POWER.

Compression ratio means nothing. It is actual cylinder pressure that counts.

As for me using ally heads. I might have. But my fellow club members have an annual race with each other and in the one class where I have (or had) a chance of winning you have to still have the original heads for the engine.

The class is getting out of my reach now though as some of the cars are running low 11s which is about 0.5 seconds faster than me. (but I think they are cheating :wink:

)

by **Eddie** » 30 Sep 2007 11:20

Drag Racers cheating? why I have never heard such vulgarities! :mrgreen:

by **Eddie** » 30 Sep 2007 12:28

Drew, how well do you or Dave, I think uses em, like the March pulleys? Was it in kit form? Or did you have to piecemeal it? How did the other pulleys and belt line up? Any spacer issues? How much of a weight difference are we 'talking" about?

by **dave-r** » 30 Sep 2007 13:11

Lots of issues. They guys are morons.

To be fair though the Mopar pulleys had not long been out when I got mine.

3 or 4 wrong power steering pulleys later (plus customs charges at my expense) I finally gave up and altered my PS braket to line them up.

by **drewcrane** » 30 Sep 2007 13:35

the march kits are a total kit, they are about 3 to 5 lbs lighter, also the pulleys are less rotating mass, dave doesnt the benefit of higher compression make more power? i understand cylinder pressure is important, as is piston design etc. , but higher compression makes more power

by **Eddie** » 30 Sep 2007 13:36

dave-r wrote:Lots of issues. They guys are morons.

To be fair though the Mopar pulleys had not long been out when I got mine.

3 or 4 wrong power steering pulleys later (plus customs charges at my expense) I finally gave up and altered my PS braket to line them up.

I was afraid of that. That would have 'tapped' my limited patience!

by **Eddie** » 30 Sep 2007 13:38

drewcrane wrote:the march kits are a total kit, they are about 3 to 5 lbs lighter, also the pulleys are less rotating mass, dave doesnt the benefit of higher compression make more power? i understand cylinder pressure is important, as is piston design etc. , but higher compression makes more power

Yes and No. The aluminum alloy is not as thermally efficient as cast iron. The heat being 'absorbed' reduces this power. So you have to increase the compression to remain at the same power production capability as the cast iron. 3-5 lbs lighter huh. Cool, that would help with accelerating out of the corners Drew :thumbsup:

The engine revs quicker sooner,( much like using an alloy flywheel instead of steel), so....I wonder if they resolved their Q.C. issues however,(March Pulleys).

by **dave-r** » 30 Sep 2007 15:49

drewcrane wrote: i understand cylinder pressure is important, as is piston design etc. , but higher compression makes more power

Forget compression ratio. It is not the same as actual compression. It means NOTHING. It's cylinder pressure that pushes the piston down. That is what torque is.
Horsepower is not real. It is a mathematical number derived from torque x rpm.

Compression ratio is just a theoretical mechanical thing. It does not do anything. Pressure depends on compression ratio and valve timing (among other things such as cooling).

You can have as much compression ratio as you like but if the valve is open all the time you will have no actual compression and the engine will not work. Big cams have valves with early intake valve opening times and more valve overlap (when both valves are open at the same time).

This is why with longer duration cams you need a bigger compression ratio (to keep cylinder pressure up).
In the same way ally heads cool the cylinder mixture. So the pressure after compression is lower. So you need a higher compression ratio to make things even again.

by **drewcrane** » 30 Sep 2007 15:58

ah haaa well put dave thats important info i never knew, my march pully system has been great, however i must admit that i have done alot of mods to make it work as it is NOT a true "bolt on kit", especially with these edddie heads they are about 1/2 inch longer and i had to make the bracket bolt area counter sink into the bracket for clearence also assembly is like a mental puzzle the 1st time, the benefit is a serpentine belt thart is wider and never slips , or squeals , they stay tight and i never have to mess with them.

by **Eddie** » 30 Sep 2007 16:40

Thats why I like to refer to Daves excellent description as Horsepressure! BTW, Thats why Turbo cars have so much tunability. All that pressure exerting down upon the piston and the faster you go the more efficient the system becomes due to the intercooler charge from the higher speed.(less time to cool though). I bet a well tuned turbo car is pretty wicked on a road course Huh? Drew/Dave An SRT-4 would be perfect for that Drew. Ever seen one? We have a few 11 sec./qtr. SRT-4 turbo's here. They are wicked quick and liteweight, these dudes have em setup for 1/4 mile v-8 killers, but I would love to see what one would do with it's FWD on a road course?

by **Eddie** » 30 Sep 2007 16:49

I posted this in the engine section but since Dave posted this thread as new heads it should comply with his post without hijacking it. Sorry if it appears so Dave. This would be a killer deal for you 340/360 guys. Smaller closed chamber for more pressure/compression without changing pistons! Big high flowing 2.02 intake valves, 8mm stems, fits stock exhaust manifolds will have to use AMC/MoPar Jeep Lifters oil through pushrods and magnum intakes or have yor intake re-drilled http://chucker54.stores.yahoo.net/momartcyheca.html Helluva price cut. Wish I had the money. A set would be going on top of my truck motor for sure! :tears:

by **drewcrane** » 30 Sep 2007 16:54

yea those turbo cars eliminate the altitude factor up here so they run 11's up here too! not to many on a road course yet some times they show up ill check some old photos i think i saw 1 on the coures kickin ass too! it was a sleeper stock looking car but ran like snot!