Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:32 am

Have any of ground on these? Can you crack 400cfm with these heads.

Post by **ou812** » Sun Sep 23, 2018 11:47 pm

Yes 400 cfm is very doable!

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:16 am

Ok good. Thankyou going to update my tried and true a3 heads

mach1charlie · Post by **mach1charlie** » Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:23 pm

I have a set of BT 3.6s, intake valve is 5.4" long, question is what legnth EX valve? I'm thinking 5.340 ?
Any help ?
Thanks

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 6:14 pm

I beleive the exh is standard cleveland length on exh. Intake .100 longer. Just picked these heads up. Very well built head by looks. What intake you using?

mach1charlie · Post by **mach1charlie** » Thu Sep 27, 2018 8:48 pm

Single plane Jack Roush, ports mismatch. But it looks cool, all bolts on to a 351 C. I have mocked it up.

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Fri Sep 28, 2018 9:16 am

The floor of the roush intake is close to 1/2 inch lower than head. I have a chi 3v. It came off scott mains emc engine and has slotted holes. It actually sits very close.

R.Olds · Post by **R.Olds** » Sun Sep 30, 2018 5:49 pm

Intakes that fit Yates C3 will fit the 3.6's....there are more intakes available for the 9.2 then 9.5.

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:26 pm

Something like edelbrock 2863? Is that what you figure?

Rowdy Yates · Post by **Rowdy Yates** » Sun Sep 30, 2018 8:42 pm

https://www.cidheads.com/collections/sm ... e-manifold

Call it in to see if it's a option.....

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Sun Sep 30, 2018 9:15 pm

Looks close Rowdy. I'll call. Looks like 4.1 height on 9.2.

Rowdy Yates · Post by **Rowdy Yates** » Sun Sep 30, 2018 10:40 pm

They have others....
SCM

http://www.scmenginedevelopments.com/manifolds.html

Call and see what can be done seems to be better offerings than the old tried and true intakes... Technology * we don't want to hurt air flow with the intake as it's the first part of the induction system.. If it's messed up from the start we're just shooting our selves in the foot. What's the bore X stroke combination? Rpm peak with compression? All engines are the same, some just offer better heads that we can take advantage of. 400 cfm is good yet I go by the correct CSA to match the engine combination.... CFM fall where it may. 370 CFM is good for 800 plus with the correct compression and engine size without much RPM. Port match heads to engine combination and Rpm requirements. Not CFM, that comes and should be correct when the heads match the combinations listed. I use to think or believe that 400 CFM is or was needed... Not so. Properly sized port will add Tq as well as match the Rpm peak. Which will make more power thru out the curve as well as under peak power. Runners match the combination not the runners match the combination. You may very well have this information... It can't be said enough.

http://www.enginebuildermag.com/2007/09 ... selection/

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 12:02 pm

Yes Rowdy its a balancing act for sure. Most 434 cube engines I've seen making 800+ run 260-325cc intake runners and 400+ cfm.

Rowdy Yates · Post by **Rowdy Yates** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 1:39 pm

Here's one for you...... CID intake used as well Look at the heads used!
Less than 400 CFM I'm sure of that. 900+

https://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/show ... ?t=2541055

Steve.k · Post by **Steve.k** » Mon Oct 01, 2018 2:12 pm

Very impressive to say the least. Looks like right around 400. Would be nice to know cc of port.

Don Terrill’s Speed-Talk

Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf

Re: Blue thunder 3.6 sbf