Edelbrock 4.0L head soon to be available.

[jsawduste]

^^^^LOL^^^^

[Cheromaniac]

All fine examples of how an engine should go together.

Mean no harm but the descriptive terminology, "poormans" build is a great disservice to 4.0 based strokers in particular and engine builds in general. Understandbly folks jump to the thought of getting something for little to nothing. All tbe while missing the basic nuance of engine builds and available performance. Sure they are out there and running but what if they had been built in a better way to begin with ? Perhaps the bad rap strokers get for lackluster performance and poor reliability might be less.

Sorry Dino, no harm intended but things are what they are.

Most of the reliability issues with strokers were caused by premature cam lobe/lifter wear and had nothing to do with "poor man's" builds. Hell, my own stroker (knock on wood) still runs like a champ after 78k miles and performance is anything but lackluster.
That said, it still has its limitations and since I built my engine more than a decade ago, the stroker game has evolved with more aftermarket parts available to build better and more powerful combinations.

[Root Moose]

I'm really anxious to hear what kinds of DCR this head can tolerate at 87 and 91 octane.

[SilverXJ]

It doesn't matter if they kept the stock designed chamber or not on the head.I would bet 8 out of ten heads will never see the track anyway. If it's for a poser jeep the stock design chambers will be fine.

LOL. Its a good thing that the aftermarket doesn't have that attitude. Who gives a rats ass if it sees a track or not.

[BADASYJ]

The aftermarket does have that attitude, they will build the head the cheapest way possible. No head that the aftermarket will produce will truly be race ready. They know most people who will buy this head will not be all out racers so they keep it as stock as possible. The major mods will be done by the machine shop, whether it's welding mounts for shaft mounted rockers or welding up the chamber for more compression or design change.Same goes for the valve size, 2.02 is to big for 99% of strokers so they keep it stock size, it's way easier and cheaper to make it bigger then to add material and make it smaller.

[nicpaige]

http://bangshift.com/general-news/new-p ... fo-photos/

More PR.

[6TIME]

It doesn't matter if they kept the stock designed chamber or not on the head.I would bet 8 out of ten heads will never see the track anyway. If it's for a poser jeep the stock design chambers will be fine. If it's going on a race jeep it's going to the machine shop first for some massaging. Remember it's aluminum, it can be welded and machined to any design you want, same as the valve cover rail weld it up n machine it down. I'm not sure a new chamber design would even be noticeable on these motors. At the most they might spin around 7000rpms at that point I would be more concerned with the bottom end then flame travel.

The chambers on the new heads mimic GM's Vortec shape. Vortecs are by far the best flowing and efficient burning factory produced SBC head on the planet. Not only do they flow well but the chamber shape causes excellent swirl and promotes a fast burn to get more power with less timing. The heart shape chambers burn better... period. That's why they redesigned the chambers... Why not?

[Jim K in PA]

The chambers on the new heads mimic GM's Vortec shape. Vortecs are by far the best flowing and efficient burning factory produced SBC head on the planet. Not only do they flow well but the chamber shape causes excellent swirl and promotes a fast burn to get more power with less timing. The heart shape chambers burn better... period. That's why they redesigned the chambers... Why not?

^This.

Efficiency has lots of different definitions. This is an updated, optimized design, built to appeal to as many customers as possible, as a for-profit company should do. Would I prefer a 24 valve DOHC cross-flow head? Hell yeah! But this E-head will accomplish MUCH for guys like me that are looking for max torque over as wide an RPM range as possible, and could care less about 6k RPM peak hp.

I am waiting impatiently for this head to be released.

[nicpaige]

Has anyone heard anymore updates on a release date? Someone earlier in this thread claimed a delay of another year for casting issues?

[b2carpen]

Has anyone heard anymore updates on a release date? Someone earlier in this thread claimed a delay of another year for casting issues?

The most recent release date was claimed to be first quarter 2015.

[PseudoSport]

Troy from Edelbrock said the new release date is March 1st.

[johnj92131]

Troy from Edelbrock said the new release date is March 1st.

Did you learn of any last minute changes/modifications being made to the production head?

[PseudoSport]

He didn't mention anything. I also asked if the pushrod holes would be large enough to remove the lifters for a cam swap with the head installed and he said no.

[Torqsplit]

That is a terrible shame. Brand new, clean slate, fresh-canvas design and they fail to make a provision for one of the biggest short-comings of all the original cast iron heads on these engines? Come on! Who did "E" consult on the needed improvements for the design of this head anyway?? With the way things are going with oil quality and metallurgy of current cams & lifters, changing these parts out isn't going to happen any LESS frequently! Disappointed. "IF" a provision were made for this (enlarged push-rod holes) I would be almost delighted to take an afternoon to pull and inspect the lifters for condition/ wear pattern & proper rotation. It would be SO great to be able to replace a ~$50 set of lifters proactively, to maintain a good cam in healthy working condition before problems arose. I could have spared myself at least the last tear down due to cam/lifter failure, and potentially future problems associated with running .904 dia SB-Chrysler lifters( ) on the SB-Chevy lobe-width's (< .842), that all the major cam mfr's want to force on us. Thanks. Sorry. End of Rant.

[jeepxj3]

... and potentially future problems associated with running .904 dia SB-Chrysler lifters on the SB-Chevy lobe-width's (< .842), that all the major cam mfr's want to force on us...

I don't understand this. Can you explain please.